Monson and his constipated physics redux; or, how electric gravity makes hollow earthers happy

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:

Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe

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.

Mass

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.

Black holes

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

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The Noachian Flood, Part Two: Electrically manufacturing OH

Continued from part one.

There didn’t seem to be a whole lot of interest in The Noachian Flood, Part One: The role of plasma, so I held off on writing and releasing Part Two. In fact, so much did I hold off, that I totally forgot about Part One and the promised Part Two, until I started recently to go through all the old posts, re-assigning tags, linking articles, etc. It was then that I saw, and re-read, Part One and realized that I had yet to publish Part Two. As Anthony E. Larson has now joined this blog and recently published a slew of articles on plasma theology, it may be the ideal time to return to this topic. So, without further adieu, here is Part Two. (Hey! That rhymes!)

Death of a Comet (not of a Salesman)…

A few years back, a comet called Schwassman-Wachmann 3 disintegrated as it made its routine appearance. This particular comet, also known as Comet 73P, comes by every 5.4 years and normally does not put on spectacular displays. It was discovered in 1930 and has been tracked ever since, so astronomers are fairly familiar with its normal behavior. However, when it appeared in 1995, it was so bright that astronomers thought it was a new comet. They soon realized their mistake and kept an eye on the newly brightened object, discovering in 1996 that it had broken into at least 3 pieces, the beginning of the disintegration process. In its next pass, in the year 2000, it had brightened even more and now there were more cometary fragments. Finally, in the latest pass, in the year 2006, dozens of fragments were discovered, due to Hubble’s imaging capabilities.

… and of a Theory

Current cometary theory posits that comets are gigantic chunks of dirty ice or icy dirt and that the brilliant displays they put on are nothing more than ice sublimating from the Sun’s rays.

Unbeknown to most of the population, with the advent of modern, observational, astronomic and analytic technology and its focused use on comets, as new comets have entered our solar system and have been observed and analyzed, current cometary theory has also disintegrated, much like Comet Schwassman-Wachmann 3 has. A whole lot of contradictory information has come out which invalidates these mainstream cometary theories. However, the mainstream astronomers continue with their dogma, despite the evidence to the contrary, looking for a comet, any comet, that will prove their theories correct. As usual, none of our high school or college texts are ever updated with the new contradictory information and another generation of children and young adults are taught the already invalidated theories.

What comets really are

One particular non-mainstream theory is that comets are charged (rocky) bodies moving in the weak electric field of space which can and does results in plasma discharges and plasma structures, making the coma, tail, hydrogen bubble, jets, etc. This theory is both highly accurate in its predictions and also validated more and more with each new comet that enters our system and is analyzed by our technology.

The following PDF document explains the electric comet model and how it measures up compared to all the new cometary information that is coming in, as well as compared to the standard, mainstream model.

The Electric Comet

Comet Schwassman-Wachmann 3’s “water” production was really OH production

Comet 73P’s disintegration allowed astronomers to finally get a peek at the inside of a comet and of course they expected to see lots of ice and water, which, of course, they didn’t.

At the heart of comet theory is the astronomers’ unsubstantiated claim that cometary displays are largely a result of water evaporation. In contrast, electrical theorist Wal Thornhill and his colleagues have repeatedly predicted that the required water levels in the nucleus will not be found. (See summaries here and here; facts already in hand virtually preclude abundant ices on the nuclei of most comets.)

But when astronomers view the comas of comets spectroscopically, their own preconceptions deceive them. They are not seeing water. (If it were there, it would not be visible.) What they actually see is the hydroxyl radical (OH), which they assume to be a residue of water (H2O) as it is broken down by the ultraviolet light of the Sun. This assumption is not only unwarranted, it requires a speed of “processing” by solar radiation beyond anything that can be demonstrated experimentally.

The explanation for the OH in cometary comas will be found in the energetic exchange between the electrically charged comet and the oppositely charged solar wind. The point was stated in an earlier Picture of the Day: “In the electric model, negative oxygen ions will be accelerated away from the comet in energetic jets, then combine preferentially with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical and the neutral hydrogen gathered around the coma in vast concentric bubbles. The reactions simply confirm the energetic charge exchange between the nucleus and Sun.”

The fragmentation of comet nuclei provides a telling opportunity to see if the ices that standard theory expects are actually there. But the time to look is in the early stages of an explosive outburst, before charge exchange with the Sun deceives astronomers. The electric model would anticipate that, with each outburst, observatories may record a decline in the relative abundance of water, before they report an increase in water (their interpretation, due to the presence of OH). As recent missions to comets have shown, water is consistently missing from the nuclei of comets but supposedly present in the comas. If the OH is, in fact, being manufactured through reactions with the solar wind, the contradictions are resolved.

(Taken from Comet Schwassman-Wachmann 3 Disintegrates (2).)

Another quote along the same line of reasoning:

When astronomers view the comas of comets spectroscopically, what they actually see is the hydroxyl radical (OH), which they assume to be a residue of water (H2O) broken down by the ultraviolet light of the Sun (photolysis). This assumption is not only unwarranted, it requires a speed of “processing” by solar radiation beyond anything that can be demonstrated experimentally.

The mysteries find direct answers electrically—in the transaction between a negatively charged comet nucleus and the Sun. In the electric model, negative oxygen ions are accelerated away from the comet in energetic jets, then combine preferentially with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical and the neutral hydrogen gathered around the coma in vast concentric bubbles. These abundances simply confirm the energetic charge exchange between the nucleus and the Sun.

The electric model thus resolves two problems for the standard theory:

1. Cometologists have never verified that the assumed photolysis is feasible on the super-efficient scale their “explanation” requires.
2. Neutral hydrogen is far too plentiful in the coma to be the “leftover” of the hypothesized conversion of water into OH. But if the negatively charged nucleus provides the electrons in a charge exchange with the solar wind, the dilemma is resolved and the vast hydrogen envelope is a predictable effect.

(Taken from The Electric Comet as quoted in Evidence Confirms Electric Comet Model.)

Some facts about OH (the hydroxyl radical)

Here on Earth (or rather above us, in the troposphere) OH production is largely a result of photolysis of ozone, which is the mechanism that astronomers assumed was taking place on comets. However, if comets can electrically generate OH, Earth can do the same.

Currently, tropospheric hydroxyl radical concentration is pretty low. The electric state of the planet (and all the planets we observe in the solar system) is also pretty low, making Earth production of OH chiefly by photolysis. But if the electrical state of the Earth were amplified, OH production through electrical means could vastly and quickly increase the hydroxyl radical concentration, just as it happens on comets.

OH is highly reactive, forming water and some other radical, such as an alkyl radical, a peroxy radical, etc. As a result of these reactions, hydroxyl radicals are short-lived.

The Stacked Planets Scenario

Assuming that the planets were once stacked (and will be again) and that there was a pillar or plasma tube connecting the planets at their poles, the removal of the planets to their current positions would have caused electrical disruptions up and down the “totem pole” of planets. This augmented electrical state could have electrically manufactured, like comets, a vast quantity of highly reactive OH in the atmosphere, which, upon reaction with other compounds, would have produced a torrent of water and caustic substances that would have rained down hot, “burning” water upon the inhabitants of the Earth.

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. (Genesis 7: 11)

The plasma columns connecting the various planets could be thought of as the world axis, a great mountain, trees of life, or as fountains of living water. As there would be more than one “fountain of living water” (plasma column) because there were more than two planets connected, the break up of these fountains of the great deep means that the planets were scattered from their stacked positions, and, as explained above, massive OH production possibly would ensue, causing the “windows of heaven” to open.

There’s more coming in part three…

Next Plasma Theology article: The Noachian Flood, Part Three: Oceans above, below and within

Previous Plasma Theology article: The Noachian Flood, Part One: The Role of Plasma

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist