8Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
If we could see gravitons we’d know everything about gravity. If we could see electrons we’d know everything about electricity. If we could see the interaction of particles with each other then we’d know everything about the strong and weak nuclear forces. We can’t see them. We can’t even see an atom. And we certainly can’t see the forces to explain them. We can only speculate. And when and if we do speculate then we’re no longer being scientific. We’re being philosophical.
The confusions that have been visited on this noble art of science is based on the philosophical reach that science is now trying to usurp. A scientist does not have the disciplines of logic that are required for philosophy any more than a philosopher has the required acuity of observation and measurement that a scientist has. The difference is only in this. A philosopher does not, as a rule, dabble in science. But our scientists are shamelessly dabbling in philosophies. And it is all being done with such disgraceful parade of poor logic that, in the fullness of time, these last pages of its history are likely to remain as a source of more than a little embarrassment. Whole chapters of scientific progress – based on nothing but pure speculation and the accidental use of concepts that partially work and partially don’t work. And all of it presented with a kind of intellectual flourish – a parade of self aggrandisement that would rival the pride of Lucifer himself.
What I find disgraceful, what is entirely inexcusable is that all this bad logic is hidden behind an obscure, in fact, an entirely incomprehensible techno-babble. Terms are presented as acronyms and all is justified in the language of algebra. Complex equations drift into ever greater complexities that would confuse God himself. And all is intended simply to hide the manifold confusions that actually bedevil science itself.
It is possibly understandable that our experts feel required to explain ‘all’. But these explanations are drifting into realms of obscurity that have nothing to do with reason or logic or common sense or indeed science or philosophy. It has simply become pretension. What’s euphemistically referenced as theory is actually just obscure gibberish masquerading as deep intellectual knowledge. It makes the toes curl. One must be ‘trained’ in science – of necessity. It is not meant to be understood - certainly not as propounded by our experts. Their intention is to flaunt a familiarity with complex abstractions. And to own up to a lack of understanding would be to let the side down – to somehow admit to the disgrace of not actually being able to see the emperor’s new clothes.
Let’s explore some of the confusions – let’s actually focus on the bare facts - on some of those manifold contradictions which our mainstream experts defend. Starting with current flow. Now. We all know that electrical engineering is the applied knowledge of the electromagnetic force – so ably unfolded by Faraday and quantified by Maxwell. And so widely applied in today’s technological revolution. Our satellites, our trips to distant planets and more to come. Our internet – our computers – our – cars – our measuring instruments, and on an on. Examples of their skills are evident everywhere.
And yet. Amongst all those able, those skilled engineers – the vast majority will insist that electricity is the result of electrons moving through their circuits in the form of current flow. No matter that Pauli’s insights depended on the simple fact that electrons do not share a path. No matter that we have never been able to get electrons to move in the same direction without forcing them by the application of some very real energy. No matter that electrons have a like charge and we could not get them to co-operate with each other in a shared environment any more than we can get to souths of two magnets to co-operate. No matter that no-one has ever found ‘spare’ electrons inside circuit wiring.
And if the glove still doesn’t fit – then try another explanation. We are now told that the actual current flow is the result of one valence electron somehow influencing a neighbouring electron – in a kind of domino effect. Now we’ve got over the ‘shared path’ problem and that ‘no loss of electrons’ number. This would certainly account for current flow. But the problem is this. Our scientists know the speed at which one valence electron would influence another valence electron. And it would take up to half an hour for it to travel through the average two meters of circuit wire before it would reach the light to light it or to reach the kettle to heat it. There would be a required delay between the switching of the switch and the lighting of the light to get that process started. But, in all other respects it could – otherwise – have been a reasonable explanation. But it’s self-evidently spurious.
So. If that glove doesn’t fit then try yet another. We all know that if electrons were the actual ‘thing’ that was transferred from our generators by our utility supply sources, then those generators would need to supply an almost inexhaustible amount of electrons that somehow turn into photons that also somehow light whole cities – all of them linked, as is often the case, to a single supply grid. The truth is that no utility supply source would be able to access that many electrons.
So. Again. Another glove. Another qualification. We are then told that actually the electrons themselves are ‘free floating’ and they intrude into the material of the conductive wiring. They do not come from the supply source itself. Which also means that these electrons that are somehow detached from any particular ‘home’ – are floating about in the air belonging to no atoms – just free for the taking. And we must now get our heads around the problem that not only is our atmosphere saturated with these previously undetected little numbers but that they can move into the circuitry – all over the place, straight through the heavy barriers of insulation which was first applied to prevent this from happening, precisely because it’s impossible for electrons to breach this insulating material.
Challenge any scientist, any chemist, on any of these points and, in the unlikely event that they continue the conversation, they will do so in a loud voice and with more than a hint of exasperation. What gets me every time is their usual defence based as it is on the statement that I should not question ‘what has been known and used for centuries now ’. Somehow this is sufficient justification. And God alone knows why because it certainly it’s not logical. I would modestly propose that in the light of so much improbability – it may be proposed that – whatever else it is - current flow is NOT the flow of electrons, nor, as I’ve seen it suggested even on these forums, the flow of protons, or ions or anything at all that belongs to the atom. Else it would be logically evident. And it is not.
Then to attend to other confusions especially as it relates to gravity. Gravity – a weak force – apparently permeates the universe and acts as a kind of ‘glue’ on matter. It only attracts. It never repels. If, indeed, all began as a Big Bang – then all that energy will systematically deplete until there is a kind of Big Crunch – where all disappears into the void that proceeded that bang. Just as the electron is the ‘carrier’ of electrical energy – the graviton is philosophised to carry the gravitational energy. But the graviton has not been seen. Yet all is explained as if such a particle were extant. Millions of dollars, euros, rupees, whatever, have been spent on trying to find some evidence in the vast space time continuum around us and beyond us - in those seemingly infinite reaches of space.
Where is the evidence of this little particle? Not even the faintest of faintest of these ripples has been found. Not a whisper. Not a shadow. Notwithstanding which we’re assured that this lack of evidence is actually not a problem. It is not considered to be sufficient reason to preclude the particle nor to discontinue the experiments. We are told to ignore the ‘absence of evidence’. A trivial requirement, a small stepping stone. Because eventually this required evidence must surely come to hand. And until then – and in its absence – it is to be regarded and referenced as a FACT. This because our philosophical scientists are no longer requiring evidence to support a theory. It’s enough to just balance those interminable equations – those indecipherable and incomprehensible sums.
Now. While it is understood that gravity is attractive – and ONLY attractive to all matter – for some reason our universe is not drifting towards a Big Crunch. On the contrary. Space is EXPANDING. And this is now also referenced as FACT. It seems that it’s enough for two schools to have reached the identical conclusion to establish a new scientific reality. No-one questions the logic that supported this conclusion. But there’s a small caveat. The galaxies and stars and planets are not expanding. It’s the actual space between them that – like poor little Alice stuck inside a rabbit hole – that is actually growing ever bigger and bigger. And all this space is expanding at a predictable rate and is responsible for systematically propelling great clumps of matter apart from other great clumps of matter – all at a consistent and quantifiable velocity.
Those that subscribe to this new evidence are careful NOT to reference the evidence of galaxies colliding – as this would put paid to their sums. And those that do not subscribe – carefully do not reference these same galaxial collisions – for the same but opposite reasons. I’ll get back to this point. But for now the point is this. If space is expanding, and yet galaxies collide – then that expansion is either not smooth or the galaxies themselves drift through space with varying velocities that would introduce a marvel of chaos to the otherwise and seemingly ordered and structured condition of our universe.
Then more confusions. We are told that nothing can exceed light speed unless it also had infinite mass. Really? In which case does that explain why photons that have no mass are able to travel at light speed? And then what does one do with this famous equation where E = mc^2? If the photon’s mass is zero then zero times any value greater or smaller than 1 – remains ZERO. Where then is all this energy that moves at photon at light speed? The truth of the matter is that science took a wrong turn somewhere and is reluctant to ‘go back’ so to speak. Somewhere – somehow – the answers that were given as an explanation for all the forces were also somehow based on some erroneous foundation – a flaw in its structure. And I would humbly suggest that this may have everything to do with the need to speculate on the properties of forces that remain invisible and particles that can only be studied by inference.
One of the more intriguing obsessions of our mainstream scientists is their interest in particle manifestations. The neutrinos are the smallest and they're also considered to be stable. But these little numbers could just as easily been seen as a really small photon or a really small electron - and the electron neutrinos - like the electron - theoretically also has it's anti particle – its twin. These are the only stable particles together with the photon, the electron and the proton. And they’re considered to be infinitely stable which is a really long time.
But the thing is this. All other particles – whatever their frequency, their mass, their lack of it, their charge, whatever - they all last for really small fractions of time. Their duration can be measured in terms of quadrillionths of a second - or quintillionths - and so on - getting progressively smaller and progressively more improbable. Here's the puzzle. For some reason when one slams one particle into another - inside a bubble chamber - then from the interaction of two stable particles comes this 'particle zoo'. It's been described as the creation of a really complex fruit salad from a chance meeting of two fruits. Those myriad particles that manifest for such a brief moment of time - simply decay. They disappear back into the vacuum of space. And the proposal is that somehow these manifest particles are the product of that interaction. It's so energetic that it would be absurd to balance out the energies in terms of thermodynamic laws.
Matter here has multiplied - inexplicably and exponentially. Strawberries, plums, apricots, pineapples, grapes, quinces, oranges, apples, and on and on - from the chance interaction of a banana with a small tomato. So our scientists put paid to that energy equivalence - that all important sum that dominates science in every other respect - and they simply look at the conclusion of that experiment – to what happens after the manifest miracle of so much coming from so little. And in as much as the final product of that interaction is less than the manifest particles that decay - then what is left is precisely the right combination of particles which then evidence a perfect conservation of charge. One can almost hear the sigh of relief.
No-one, notwithstanding the evidence of this manifest matter in all it's varieties and that variety is widely considered to be potentially infinite - not one of them have suggested that, just perhaps, they are disturbing some kind of matter in the field that holds these particles. Why is this not considered? Could it not be that in the moment of interaction all that becomes manifest may be those particles in the field that were first invisible - and after impact, become visible - and then they decay? That way - and only in that way - would they be able to argue conservation of anything at all.
This is the blind spot, the weak spot - the Achilles heel of our scientists. There is an evident need or a compulsion to uphold to one inviolate truth regardless of how well it fits with the evidence. According to mainstream - energy cannot be created. And NOTHING can exceed light speed. My own question is this. How would we be able to measure anything at all that exceeded light speed? In our visible dimensions light is the limit to our measuring abilities. It's the gold standard. Actually it’s all we’ve got. We’ve nothing smaller and nothing faster to compare it against. If anything moved at faster than the speed of light then light itself would NEVER be able to find it. It would, effectively be invisible.
Which brings me round to my favourite topic and to another 'inconvenient truth' - to borrow a phrase from Al Gore. Around about the time when Heisenberg and Bohr were forging the foundations of Quantum mechanics, Zwicky, a Polish immigrant to America - saw something that was only enabled by a new found access to new and improved telescopes. What became evident were galaxies, in the millions, where prior to this there was nothing beyond our Milky Way Galaxy. And what was also evident was that the mass measured in the galaxies, was simply NOT enough to hold those galaxial structures together. If gravitational principles were to be universally upheld - then by rights - those great big star structures should have unravelled or should be unravelling. Neither was evident. He then superimposed the requirement for what he called 'missing matter'.
Over time those early results have been systematically ratified and refined. In effect - many scientists - our leaders in the field of astrophysics - have proved, conclusively that galaxies themselves are held bound by what is now referred to as dark mass - from what is proposed to be dark energy. In effect - they've uncovered a new - hitherto unknown FORCE. No longer are there four forces. There appears to be every evidence that there is this fifth force - and like a fifth column - it's well hidden but pervasive. But the new and insuperable puzzle is this. It's invisible. Yet it's everywhere. And we have no reason to doubt this evidence. Our scientists' ability to measure and observe is unquestionably exact. But, and yet again - they then make yet another nose dive into yet another explanation for the inexplicable. All around are frantically for its particle - the 'darkon' equivalent of the 'graviton'. We are back to an Alice in Wonderland world - looking at an upside down reality - a bizarre universe that must first and foremost, obey any and every rule that our mainstream scientists propose - no matter their inherent contradictions.
Why should the particle be visible? Is this still to do with the obsessive requirement to disallow faster than light speed? Are we getting ready set, go - to confuse the hell out of another hundred years or more of - simply to adhere to relativity concepts? Has the time not come - with respect, where we can concentrate of 'field' physics and explore the implications of this - rather than impose a 'field' condition on known particles that none of them are able to constitute a field. No known stable particles are able to move together. Electrons and protons are, effectively, monopoles. decay within twenty minutes. Photons irradiate outwards and can only share a path when their rays are deflected unnaturally. Nothing known is capable of sustaining a field condition. So WHY do our learned and revered insist on imposing a standard particle construct on a field? It is the quintessential condition of forcing a square peg into a round hole - of fitting one incorrect fact into another incorrect fact - in another endless circular argument. Again, with respect, has the time not come, in fact LONG overdue, to revisit - not so much our answers, which are increasingly shown to be incorrect - but to revisit our questions about physics? I personally, think that time would be well spent in exploring the conditions required for a sustained field. And I think the evidence now is overwhelming that the field itself holds matter - and, for obvious reasons, this unhappy, this uncomfortable, this inconvenient truth - needs to be fully explored. Just perhaps a whole world exists out there that remains out of touch of our actual realities. It leads - we follow. It proceeds in one time frame - and we interact with it in another time frame. That way - just that one small inclusion into our theoretical constructs - and we would be able to reconcile so much with what is evident. I suspect it's our aether energies - and reference to this has now been long been considered to be politically incorrect. Perhaps the time is now that this poor, abused concept be revisited and revitalised by our theoreticians. Certainly we may then salvage some logical coherence that is entirely exempt in current thinking.