Expanding Earth & Misplaced Plasma Theory

One of the problems facing Earth Expansion Theory (EET) is the absence of a plausible physical mechanism to produce expansion. The largest obstacle the EET’s have is countering the mechanism of gravitational accretion that the gravity model assumes to occur inside planets and stars. The proposed solution has been to invoke mass formation at the core but how that is achieved is not easily explained.

All of the various theories proposed to explain EET involve the addition of ad hoc extras compatible with gravitational accretion. Which means that gravitational accretion is not questioned but rather than, maybe, something else is being missed. The latest ad hoc factor involves plasma theory where it is proposed that the solar wind, comprised of protons and electrons, enters the earth system via the polar regions and travels towards the core where new matter/mass is formed.  This explanation was published in Issue 126, December, 2016 of AIG NEWS, pages 39-42, available here. The theory has some problems.

The first problem is the use of the idea of magnetically charged electrons and protons. No such things. Protons and electrons are electrically charged particles of varying energy states. They generate magnetic fields when in motion.

It is then proposed that these magnetically charged particles are attracted by conduction to the strongly magnetic core-mantle region of the Earth by entering the polar auroral zones and lower terrestrial layers as well as via lighting strikes during electrical storms.  Solar protons also reach the Earth’s surface via rain, with corresponding emission of electrons in the opposite direction.

Except that protons and electrons are not able to pass, in general, through matter in the solid state with the exception that electrons can travel through conductive solid metals. In actual fact protons and electrons pass through the earth-system via the magneto and ionospheres, with most of the motion restricted to the non-solid layers of the Earth including the oceans, atmosphere and ionosphere. The bulk of the solar wind is constrained to the ionosphere since the atmosphere itself is highly resistive and impedes  the simple passage of charged particles.

Pollack has shown that the oceans, which comprise 70% of the Earth’s surface, emit large quantities of protons at daybreak which then travel laterally, under the effect of horizontal electric fields, to produce winds etc.. The EET solar protons would thus become entrapped into this system and diverted from their assumed path to the core-mantle region.

Explosive volcanic eruptions are primarily of matter in the plasma state accompanied by spectactular lightning displays.  This behaviour seems to be caused by highly electropositive magma interacting with a negative earth surface charge,

It is not permissible to invoke matter creation at the core since creationism is not allowed in any scientific explanation, so the EET solar wind fueled mechanism is implausible. Is there an alternative explanation? Yes, that planets are the result of prolonged plasma Z-Pinch mechanisms in which matter, protons and electrons, are compressed into high density forms of matter that then, after the forcing plasma current wanes, start to equilibrate to lower density minerals resulting in volumetric expansion of the planet. Gravity is irrelevant in this scenario, much as it is irrelevant in the plasma universe model, though it is necessary for political correctness to incorporate it into the theory.

EET has one fundamental obstacle facing it – gravitational accretion. Until that mechanism is falsified, EET will be restricted to making ad hoc adjustments to the ruling gravitational only paradigm. But if the Universe is electrical, and gravity an electrical effect, then earth expansion becomes explicable.

Posted in Geology, Geophysics, Hare-brained theories | Leave a comment

Cavendish Conundrums

The Gravitational Constant, G, is determined by the Cavendish Experiment, but as Rupert Sheldrake has noted in one of his You Tube lectures, Big G varies and no one understands why.


The plane of motion of the oscillating test objects is horizontal, thus eliminating any gravitational force, and restricting any motion to that of mass attracting mass etc..

In this experiment there exist 3 physical fields,

  1. Gravitational Field, oriented vertically and acting downwards
  2. Electric Field oriented vertically and the Lorentz force acting horizontally
  3. Magnetic field, oriented anywhere from horizontal at the equator to vertical at the pole, depending on the latitude of the location the experiment is being conducted, (or should I say, performed……..).

As the objects of the experiment are made of the metal lead, magnetic effects are believed to be absent.

As the motion of the oscillating system is restricted to the horizontal plane, variations in gravity at right angles to the horizontal plane cause no effects.

But variations in the electric field (vertical) will cause variations in the Lorentz force that acts horizontally, and in the same plane as the oscillation of the small mass m.  This variation cannot be due to variations in gravity.

Which leads to the suspicion that gravity is some sort of an electrical phenomenon.

We already know that surveyors plumb-bobs used to orient theodolites in geodetic surveys near adjacent mountain masses do not deflect as expected towards the mountain due to, it is guessed, an absence of mass.

And I know that a downhole survey of an angle hole drilled through artesian water saturated Canning Basin Sediments on both Pardoo and De Grey pastoral stations east of Port Hedland in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, show anomalous gravity measurements directly under the artesian aquifer that cannot be explained by Newton’s Gravity theory.

It is likely the variation in Big G is caused by variations in the Earth’s ambient electric field, implying that gravity is essentially an electrical phenomena.

Update: Oscillation ????

I was thinking about the cause of the oscillation of the suspended smaller masses while the larger masses are basically fixed in space. Here’s one explanation:

The small mass approaches the larger mass. Repulsion occurs due to like repelling like, which then feeds back via the Lorentz Force into the electric field, that then propels the small mass back towards the larger mass, which then repels the smaller mass. Again. And the system oscillates as observed. Bear in mind that gravitational attraction is extremely weak at this scale, if at all measureable, so the observed phenomena have to be explained by physical forces most likely operating at this scale. In other words the electrical force.

Posted in Electric Universe, Geophysics, Hare-brained theories | Leave a comment

Gobs more on Gravity

It is clear that physicists in particular, and hence science in general, still do not understand the nature of gravity after its initial formulation by Isaac Newton over 300 years ago.  His famous equation describing the magnitude of the force causing two bodies to appear to attract each other remains valid to this day but equally this equation does not explain gravity.

In Newton’s time the Earth and planets were interpreted as spherical objects suspended in vacuum orbiting a radiant Sun.  It was a description of the visible solar system observed by the naked human eye.

The strangeness of Newton’s gravity equation is that it only deals with two bodies and no more. Just as strange as Coulomb’s Law that describes the force between two electrically charged bodies, with the difference being that Coulomb’s law deals with both attraction and repulsion while Newton’s only attraction.  Both equations are of the form F=Constantxb1xb2/d^2.  In gravity’s case b is the weight of the body compared to the earth, and is always positive; there is no such thing as a negative weight, if such a force can be measured in the first place. It easily follows that for the Coulomb Law b is the electric charge on the body, either positive or negative. “d” is the distance between the two bodies, in this case squared.

(As an aside, one could write computer code to numerically predict the three body problem but it is the nature of computer coding that each line of code introduces the time factor as a result of precedence, since parallel instantaneous numerical calculation is not possible. Hence the probable explanation why 3-body modelling evolves into chaotic motion.  Gravity occurs instantaneously and this cannot be modelled by computer code).

Where Newton’s Law remains incomplete is because no one at the time could conceive of a negative force between two bodies, since lighter than air bodies such as hot-air balloons had yet to be invented, so no one observed a body moving spontaneously upwards away from the earth’s surface. Of course people at the time understood that arrows, cannon balls and birds left the earth’s surface and flew but such objects were forced into the air and would in time return back to the surface. Throwing a ball into the air always resulted in the ball coming back to the surface.

The celestial model that Newton thus used involved the sun and planets being spherical bodies, as observed, separated by space or vacuum in which the only force was gravity as described by Newton; the billiard ball model, as it were. In this system gravity is always positive.

Today that view is plainly simplistic.  The solar system is now comprised of planets with magnetospheres and ionospheres, a Sun that ejects unpredictable electrified plasmas that affect the planets and emits a continuous stream of charged particles, positive and negative, that comprises the solar wind; and all of these effects would have been invisible to Newton and his peers. One could thus propose that what Newton and his peers observed was the aggregate motion of the celestial bodies propelled by an invisible electromagnetic force that was called gravity.

In the plasma universe model, 99.999% of the visible universe is made up of matter in the plasma state, and the physics described by the Laws of Maxwell etc. Plasma physics is thus the norm, and in contrast, our solar system a highly anomalous exception.  The problem is that in the gravitational or standard astronomical model we have assumed our solar system to be the norm and it’s the rest of the Universe that is at odds with Newton’s Law of Gravity. That’s why astrophysics has to conjure up black holes, dark matter, dark energy, magnetic reconnection, to make the Universe fit into our ruling gravitational paradigm.

Except we have it completely back to front.  Our solar system is the oddity, not the Universe.

In the Plasma Universe 99.999% of matter is ionised and its physics adequately described by the laws of electromagnetics as detailed by A. J. Peratt, 2015, Physics of the Plasma Universe.  In the plasma universe we are dealing with protons, electrons, neutrinos and ions, positive and negative. Newtonian bodies are exceptions in that they are electrically neutral shapes of plasma explicitly in the solid state, and comprise only 0.001% of the visible universe. These objects could be interpreted as frozen plasma.

The reason our solar system is at such odds with the rest of the Universe is because it seems to have only arrived at its present configuration during the last 1000 years or so, perhaps even to Medieval times when the Gregorian Calendar was implemented in 1582 CE. However since other galaxies seem to obey the Faraday motor mechanism, including our own Milky Way galaxy, this suggests the inner planets in our solar system will slow down in their present orbits until they reach orbital velocities expected for such a mechanism.  It suggests that Newton’s Law of gravitation will become less accurate and the laws of Maxwell and Heaviside more accurate in describing the physics of our solar system over time. But not in our times of course since it may take millions of years to reach rotational equilibrium. Or it might take a shorter time – no one knows.

Newtonian bodies can acquire static electric charges, but otherwise they are electrically neutral in which, however, protons are dominant since it is these entities that give matter mass. Protons will move towards the cathode, or negative charge, of the electric field they are immersed in. The Galilean observation of a marble and cannon ball both reaching the Earth’s surface when dropped from a height is no more complex than assuming both marble and cannon ball are made of protons and electrons, and then it’s simply protons moving to the cathode, or Earth’s surface; hence both bodies will arrive at the surface at the same time.

It is important to realise Newton’s Laws only apply to solids and not gases or liquids. Newton’s Law applies to bodies that have shape, are visible and capable of independent motion; it is, after all said and done, Newton’s Laws of Motion. Newton’s laws should not be applied to invisible objects or sub-atomic particles. To overcome this science has invented the centre-of-gravity entity concept and while easing the arithmetic, it none the less  has not solved the body definition. As an example where would the centre of gravity of the Earth’s oceans lie? At the same location as the centre-of-gravity of the mantle, core, outer core, and oceans, everything else being equal. Which makes d, the distance between two bodies, zero, and F, thus infinity and explains how the notion of gravitational accretion is framed.  Physical reality suggests otherwise, however.

The observation that plumb bobs used in geodetic surveying are not attracted by adjacent mountains, and thus masses, simply means that mass does not attract mass, contrary to what is universally assumed by the Gravitationalists. The anomalous behaviour in the diamond core hole of the downhole surveying instrument, detailed here and at Malagabay.wordpress.com, adds further support for the conclusion that mass does not attract mass. Instead gravity seems to be the response of solid, or more accurately non-ionised, matter to electric fields.

The error the physicists made is that they assumed Newton’s Law of Gravitation to be axiomatic. Instead of changing the theory when the data contradict it, science instead decided that because gravity theory is absolute, then the data or observations are incorrect and need to be adjusted to comply with the theory, or the Law of Gravity.

Except there are no Laws in science, only in religion.

Posted in Hare-brained theories, Heresy | Leave a comment

Godly Gravity

Martin Rees, British Astronomer Royal, writes in the introduction to his book,

“Gravity, almost undetectable between laboratory-scale bodies, is the dominant force in astronomy and cosmology. The basic structures in our cosmic environment – stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies – all involve a balance between gravitational attraction and the disruptive effect of pressure or kinetic energy.”

Wal Thornhill noted:

Three things stand out immediately. First, gravity is the weakest force in the universe. Second, gravity is not understood. And third, although magnetic fields are detected on the Sun and everywhere in space, there is no mention of the necessary generative electric currents in plasma, which constitutes 99.999 per cent of the visible universe! This is a doctrinaire failure to notice the obvious.

Martin Rees is also an atheist according to his Wikipedia entry.

In ancient times humanity worshipped the planets as gods in the heavens, gods that wreaked havoc on Earth in the various myths and interpretations if accepted at face value.

To this very day religious peoples still look to the heavens for God, Allah, etc., but those gods are no longer physical but now metaphysical.

The job of the ancient priests was to predict the movement of the Gods, or planets, in order to give sufficient warning to the people as the next godly or divine catastrophe was visited onto the earth and its inhabitants.

The uncertainty of the position of the planets and the position of the Earth to its fellow solar members was memorialised in the various calendars civilisations adopted.  Accurate astronomical prediction became paramount for religious ceremonies, and it is remarkable that the Christian celebration of Easter is so linked.

The Renaissance period included the observations by Copernicus, Galileo and Bruno, to mention only some, that something changed in the heavens and that the Earth was orbiting the Sun, and not, as previously believed, the Sun orbiting the Earth.

It seems very likely that Newton’s Law of Gravity, framed during this period, replaced God as the predictor of heavenly motion.

Gravity seems to be the secular analog of God, and like God, manifest at the cosmological scale in the heavens but hardly measureable, if at all, at the laboratory scale. It acts instantaneously, and is all encompassing, just like God, or Allah, of Krishna.

No wonder after 300 or more years we still don’t understand Gravity.

Gravity could be described as the Atheist’s Divine inspiration.

Posted in Hare-brained theories | 1 Comment

Electrons and Electric Fields

The famous Millikan oil-drop experiment involved observing suspended minute oil-drops falling under gravity and then under an applied electric field which stopped the downward motion. There are quite a few descriptions of the experiment on the Internet, this being one of many.

There is a wee, ever so minor problem with the experimental setup and assumptions. This wee problem is the assumption that with the experimental electric field turned off, the only force acting on the oil-droplets is gravity.

What about the ambient electric field of the Earth itself?

None of the descriptions of the experiment make any mention of the Earth’s electric field, but do stress the presence of the far weaker gravitational field, and of course the far stronger electric field induced by the experiment design to stop the oil-droplets from falling under gravity.

Posted in Geophysics | Leave a comment

Cul De Sac’s

I’ve found myself in an intellectual cul-de-sac after discovering the solar wind is comprised of protons and also electrons travelling in the same direction in the solar electric field.  Either the space probes are simply picking up the presence of electrons in a non-vectorial fashion, meaning the sensor simply registers the presence of electrons, not their direction, and then there is therefore no problem, or the electron presence is sensed by a direction sensitive sensor, and then there is a big problem. The problem is thus in the ‘pending’ tray.

I recently purchased a text “What is the Electron” and discover that there are at least 9 different explanations, and perhaps more, for the electron.  I also acquired an E-Text, Models of the Atomic Nucleus by Norman D. Cook (published by Springer) in which there are an even greater number of models for the nucleus than for the electron, none of which alone can explain all the observations of the nucleus.

To borrow from the late Fred Hoyle, we seem to be thinking with the wrong ideas, so I have decided to go back to the early days of physics, JJ Thomson’s time, for example. and discover how we ended up in this most peculiar situation.  What startled me a little was Cook’s remark that scientists who study the electron form one category of research whose measurements of electron phenomena involve forces many times greater in magnitude than those measured for nuclides; the two camps, electron and proton, simply don’t meet, or they do at Xmas and then it’s a right-hand not understanding what the left-hand is doing.

I suspect the origin of the problem lies further back to Isaac Newton’s time when he formulated his laws of motion and gravitation, and what an object explicitly was in his understanding.  It is a topic I have occasionally touched on indirectly, but I suspect much of the present confusion in physics lies in what is understood to be a Newtonian body.  I also suspect that confusion has resulted from extrapolating Newton’s observations to the sub-atomic realm.

So future posts will focus on finding an exit from the cul-de-sac I’m in.

Posted in Geophysics, Philosophy, Politics | 2 Comments


Total silence on the drill-hole gravity problem described at Malaga Bay. Obviously the gravitationalists are stumped.

Posted in Geology, Geophysics | 5 Comments