I’ve mentioned Milton W. Monson and his curious book once before on this blog, but without really explaining its impact on me. Whatever you think of him, after reading the book, it is hard to get it out of your mind. A look at the reactions to it by the physics boys who’ve actually read it shows that although most give it a bad review (as in bad physics and bad mathematics), they all concede that the book is unforgettable. How could it not be? His was the first book, that I know of, that attempted to tackle physics using algebra alone, as well as to unite the sciences. Plus, it was really funny.
I was one of the few individuals (actually, I don’t know the precise number of individuals) who contacted the author after reading the book. It was then that I learned that he sent out S.T.R.R.I.P. Tease bulletins to those who contacted him, free of charge. (S.T.R.R.I.P. = Society To Restore Rationalism In Physics, or something to that effect. Yes, he was a dirty old man.) The S.T.R.R.I.P. Tease bulletins were further physics lessons that he had not included in his book.
Monson was/is (I don’t know if he is still alive) an atheist and dedicated an entire chapter to debunking religion, but despite that, I had to send him some emails concerning the similarities I found in modern revelations with the physics he was proposing. Needless to say, finding a spiritual counterpart in his theory didn’t make him very happy and he tried to convince me of the errors of my ways. I had fun corresponding with him and I think it was fun for him, too, as he was getting up there in age and most people just thought of him as “old Monson with the crazy space balls.” (Space balls was a theory he invented to help explain physics phenomena.)
Monson was set in his irreligious ways, and accepted a great deal of mainstream science, while attempting to debunk the rest that he felt did not hold up to rational, physics scrutiny. He either wasn’t aware of the plasma scientists and their experiments, or chose not to consider their results in his model of the Universe. I believe that he simply didn’t know about it. I also believe that if he had known about it, he probably would not have liked it, as the discoveries plasma scientists make tend to confirm the scriptures, and he, being an atheist, probably would not have liked that very much. Also, as he tended to ridicule everything he felt was wrong, if plasma science was available to him, and he thought it was erroneous, it probably would have gotten a mention in his book.
Let me just say here and now to Monson, if you are still alive: I thoroughly enjoyed your book and am glad it was written, both for its witticisms and its portrayals of new concepts. And if he is not alive, then to his son and any other surviving family members: Your departed relative made an impression for the better upon at least one individual on this planet. I hope one day someone takes up and finishes his foundational work.
Physics Is Constipated (Intellectually That Is)
That is the title of Monson’s book. Even if the content was horrendous, the title alone would be hard to forget. To his credit, though, it was engaging and fun. Heck, even the front and back cover artwork and text were thought-provoking. But it has been many years since I last read it. So, what was my surprise when along comes an electrical theorist, Wallace Thornhill, proposing an electric gravity model in an electric universe and using words that seemingly conveyed the same types of thoughts as Monson?
Here is Thornhill’s shortened, but nevertheless interesting paper:
Gravity, Einstein and Scientific Saints
Gravity is the most familiar force. We are subject to it every day of our lives. Newton gave us his ‘law of gravity,’ which describes its effect but doesn’t explain it. “I frame no hypotheses,” he wrote. (Thornhill, first paragraph of Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe.)
Unlike Newton, Monson actually attempted to explain gravity. And his explanation, using only two material types, which he called structured space and structured matter, made pretty darn good sense. Thornhill seems to build upon this Monsonian base—has he read Monson’s book?—, including the all-important electrical connection.
Einstein wasn’t so prudent when he introduced his “postulates.” Unfortunately, his unreal geometry doesn’t explain gravity either. The usual demonstration using heavy steel balls on a rubber sheet to represent ‘gravity wells’ relies on gravity as its own explanation! (Thornhill, first paragraph of Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe.)
Thornhill throughout this article does the same thing Monson did: show the Einsteinian age as the death of rational physics. Monson is a bit harsher in his denunciation of Einstein, whereas Thornhill at least gives Einstein the benefit of doubting his own words:
How has this situation arisen? In the 20th century technology perfected wireless communication and computers and got man into space, while fundamental science fell deeper into a ‘black hole’ of complication, illogicality and metaphysics. I consider the principal cause has been the usurping, since Einstein, of natural philosophy and physics by theoretical mathematicians. Meanwhile Einstein, perhaps to his credit, remained sceptical of his own work. (Thornhill, 6th paragraph of Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe, emphasis mine.)
Monson spoke of the scientific community with disdain as being made up of “scientific saints” and “scientific priests.” In this paper, Thornhill quotes Mike Disney in his footnotes as saying:
The most unhealthy aspect of cosmology is its unspoken parallel with religion. Both deal with big but probably unanswerable questions. The rapt audience, the media exposure, the big book-sale, tempt priests and rogues, as well as the gullible, like no other subject in science.
The Aether and the Michelson-Morley Experiment
Monson was a believer in the Aether. He rejected the concept that space was filled with nothing. In his view, there were but two elements that made up the entire Universe: structured space and structured matter and the interaction between these two elements as they competed for the same volume of space accounted for all of the seen and unseen energy manifestations around us. He believed in simplification as the key to the promulgation of the sciences among the masses. The structured space was the motive element whereas the sctructured matter was basically just pushed around. Each element was completely opposite in its qualities. For example, one could be compressed and deformed like a hollow balloon whereas the other was a dense ball of super hard, indestructible stuff. There was no volume of space that was not occupied by either structured space or structured matter.
Sound familiar? When I brought to his attention Lehi’s writings of that which acts and that which is acted upon (see 2 Ne. 2: 13-14) or the Lord’s revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants about the Light of Christ filling the immensity of space (see D&C 88: 12), etc., he wasn’t too happy, but I was pleased to see that he had come to these conclusions on his own, independent of the word of God, merely by observing nature.
Monson’s major problem was the Michelson-Morley experiment, which had apparently failed to detect the aether. His solution was a modification to that experiment that, in his estimation, would have shown that the aether does, in fact, exist. (He believed that the experiment failed because the experimenters didn’t know what to look for.) At any rate, as the experiment had been discredited as a failure, any newbie (such as Monson) contending that the aether was real was laughed at as a crackpot.
Thornhill in this paper brings up the same Michelson-Morley experiment, adding, though, that Dayton Miller repeated the experiment and found an aether drift! Monson, apparently, was not aware of that fact, as Miller was written out of the text books, which would have helped his case immensely.
Structure, structure, everywhere
As stated above, Monson believed the Universe was composed of structured material of two types. Thornhill, likewise, addresses the Universe as structured, even taking the electron and breaking it down into smaller structures called subtrons.
Gravity, Electromagnetism and Inertia
Both men tie gravity, electromagnetism and inertia to the same common source: the aether. Whereas Monson contended that the aether “deformed balloons” pushed back at structured matter to produce gravity, Thornhill explains that the minute, structural, electric dipoles align in one direction to produce gravity. In either case, all manifestation of any type is explained from a single source.
Gravity is a Variable
Both Monson and Thornhill come to the same conclusion: gravity varies depending upon the aether environment. Monson described the aether environment in terms of compression and torsion and Thornhill describes it in terms of charge and electricity.
The speed of light and gravity
Both men also address the near instantaneous speed of gravity, no matter how far the distances, and the slowness of light. Both Monson and Thornhill address the e=mc2 equation, including when the speed of light is put into the equation. Neither man gets time slowing down or Alice in Wonderland Effects. Everything remains based in reality and rationalism. However, Monson, again, explains things using compression and torsion, while Thornhill explains it in electrical terms. Both men, though, make sense.
Monson and Thornhill both explain mass in terms of the aether environment and not as “quantity of matter.” As a result, this opens up the possibility that mainstream science’s expectation of fluffy, spongy or hollow bodies could turn out to be solid and dense while the expectation of solid and dense bodies could turn out to be hollow or spongy.
Thornhill, in fact, draws from recent cometary and asteroid evidence, which should have shown fluffy snowballs (the comets) but instead showed apparently dense rocks, suggesting that our models—of what type of a body ought to produce the gravitational field were are seeing—are inaccurate. Monson, whose book was written in the 1980’s, never had this astronomical data to work from.
Electric Gravity and Hollow Planets
Electric, or aether-generated gravity opens up the very real possibility of the planets being hollow. The current thoughts on gravity, that it requires a certain amount of matter to have a certain amount of gravity, preclude many planets from being hollow. They must be solid in order to account for the amount of gravity detected. So, if gravity is shown to have an electric connection, the main obstacle to hollow planets vanishes altogether.
Although Monson never intended to promote the hollow earth theory, his model could be equally applied to both solid and hollow planets, without destroying it (the model). Likewise, Thornhill’s model is also consistent with hollow spheres or structures, both on the subatomic level and on the planetary or galactic scale. The electric universe theorists usually do not categorically state that their model favors a hollow planets scenario, as they are marginalized by the mainstream scientists enough, as it is, but as one reads more and more of their findings, it becomes apparent that it does.
The major break between Monson and Thornhill is their opinion of black holes. Whereas Monson accepted that black holes do, in fact, exist, Thornhill and the other plasma scientists think it’s just a mathematical invention, an imaginary device that has no counterpart in the real world. But, again, Monson didn’t have the plasma data to work with. If he had, he might have discarded the notion of black holes, too.
LDS Scientists: Pay Attention
The plasma theorists and scientists are on the cutting edge. Despite being largely ignored by the mainstream, they are forging ahead and breaking new ground. It would be to our benefit (as an LDS community) to pay attention to their findings. The day may come that we will have to rebuild society. If and when that happens, a proper understanding of all physics findings will be needed to correct the errors perpetuated by the current scientific community, your non-LDS peers, otherwise we LDS will be no better off or no more enlightened than any other people on the planet, regardless of the gospel knowledge we possess. The electrical connection may be the most important of all.
The keys to correcting the errors are the scientific anomalies, which invalidate many theories. Often we don’t hear about these anomalies. They are briefly reported and then swept under the rug. Out of sight, out of mind and the current popular scientific theory remains intact. Inform yourself about the anomalies. Bring them up, focus on them and seek to correct the errors. A knowledge of the plasma research will help as that field of research addresses anomalies.
Next Plasma Theology article: Plasma Rods: A Theoretical Concept
Previous Plasma Theology article: The hollow earth theory, the plasma model and Mormon theology