Process, Context & Recursion I

Recent contributions within the Electric Universe Group, regarding Markland and Birkeland Effects in Spatial Electricity and Magnetism, are certainly posing important questions concerning the "Supposed Diametrical Opposites" clearly involved at crucial turning points in the Development of the subsequent System.

For, these new questions strike at the very heart of the Standard Universal Pluralist Approach - still wholly dominant in literally all of the Methodologies throughout the full set of the Sciences. The Wholly Static Conditions always thereby imposed upon all Investigative Experiments, currently undertaken, in order to reveal, supposedly, the Forever Fixed Natural Laws involved, NEVER address the real interactions between them in our Actually Fully Holistic World.

Indeed, the Dialectics of Hegel, and even Marx, treat the evidently existing Opposites, as merely capable of completely cancelling each other out. Whereas, the new evidence says that they don't! They not only continue to exist, but actually to co-exist, in wholly new-and-varying joint Forms - especially within Electricity and Magnetism!

Clearly, after two and a half millennia of subscription to Plurality, scientists are mostly at a loss to cope with these crucial new interactions. And, it also, most certainly, doesn't help, that in Cosmology, the almost total lack of appropriate Experiments (or even the necessary conditions to arrange for them), as well as the fact that even the best-informed Oppositionists, being almost entirely from within a Technologist Community (EU), who unavoidably carry over into their criticisms of Mainstream Scientists, their own primarily Pragmatist Stance, which though opposed to the position of the Wholly-Theoretical Mainstream Scientists, nevertheless, still maintain the very same dedication to Pluralist Laws and Equations.

The problems are not only incredibly difficult to solve, but actually Totally Impossible to implement, without a Root & Branch Rejection of Plurality by both sides of the current split in Physics.

And, to Compound the Felony, the only current strand in Philosophy that attempts to reject Plurality for Holism (namely the Marxists), have never managed to extend things, comprehensively, into any of the Sciences - which is vital for, the absolutely Primary Task, in equipping all of the Sciences, with an essentially exclusively Holist Approach.

But, for that to be the case, that mammoth Undertaking certainly must be urgently addressed! And, to do this, we now know exactly where to begin! The only quesation has to be HOW?

For, in spite of the major contribution by Karl Marx to Capitalist Economics - as it then took him the rest of his life, to lay a sound and comprehensive basis in that Discipline, it hasn't, yet, even begun to be addressed in Science, and, instead, has, most devastatingly, veered well off-track into the Key maximally-flawed area of Modern Physics! So, let us briefly re-iterate the key and profound difference between Plurality and Holism in all of the Sciences.

It has two major aspects.

The first, is that with multiple, different and simultaneous factors, both active-and-mutually-affecting of one another, they are always unavoidably-involved in Reality-as-is: and thus will also, be generally, and both-ways recursive with everything-else involved, and, therefore, repeatedly, and significantly, modifying all involved components!

Yet, on the contrary, Plurality wrongly assumes that these are all Fixed Eternal Laws, and fundamentally independent of one another - ONLY merely-summing, and never modifying qualitatively and recursively with any of the others.

Now, even this major simplification would NOT be discernable in Reality-as-is, so scientists also artificially severely-reduced the factors present in Investigative Experiments, in order to ideally involve only, at best, a single factor, which would perform exactly the same, as when acting with others, but which here is eminently discernable for use in all possible diverse circumstances (when only comsidering that single factor)! And also, of course, unmodified by any other also present factors.

Second, the use of such Pluralist Laws necessarily separated the full set of required technological processes, into many wholly individual processes - each one allowing only the use of a single Pluralist Law, within the necessarily provided perfect environment for that Law to act (and no others), to perform each single step in the ultimately necessary individual laws, along with their required outputs.

But, this amounted to a strictly man-made, wholly artificial technological route to a finally required result!

AND, it DID NOT reflect exactly what happens in Reality-as-is.

So, to deal with such things theoretically: that is to actually advance Human Knowledge and Understanding, so that, exactly as had happened with Euclidian Geometry, and thereafter with Mathematics-in-general, the involved Discipline could then be cerebrally constructed, and also allow sound theoretically-achieved predictions, not merely pragmatically, but intrinsically, hopefully by some similarly Rational System of established facts and their Laws. BUT, that couldn't happen with the Real Laws for they were unavailable - totally ensured by the only methods currently available to Mankind!

They had only the old pragmatic means, along with the non mutually-relatable individual Pluralist Laws - and that simply wouldn't do!

Nevertheless, they did also have a truly valid Rational System - that of Mathematics.

So they cheated!

Even though the Pluralist Laws were valid only in particular tailored situations, the scientists derived mathematical versions of those Laws from measured Data!

And then related them rationally(?) to one another, though, of course, wholly illegitimately from those Equations delivered entirely from the wholly incompatible Laws. They merely assumed that they could do this; but they most certainly couldn't!

Don't get me wrong! Mathematics is a wholly valid Rational Discipline, and crucial to Mankind in dealing with Form... But, its uses to relate Scientific Laws, as revealed artificially in Science, is wholly illegitimate! To really do that, those involved must first understand, in detail, exactly what the actual HOLIST Nature of Reality-as-is consists of: and that has NOT yet even begun within most Sciences!

And, of course, the most crucial area resides in the mutual modifying affects of scientific Laws upon one another, which are ususually qualitative and distorting, whereas the usual assumption is that they are Fixed, and indeed Eternal, and usually only Sum and Complicate, rather than Qualitatively Transform one another.

Now, the possibility of arriving at "What Really Happens" has, because of Holism, always been a major problem, for every even small change in the Conditions of an Event, will always qualitatively modify what ensues. So, investigators always worked very hard to prevent such changes, for only then would the results always be predictable!

Mankind had successfully developed Pluralist Science! And for the most part, Pluralist Science was successful. 

But, in fact, there were many ways of assuming Natural Situations... And they all gave different results!

The Natural Way:

Non-scientists could only take Reality as its occurring naturally, so every way would be different, as various involved laws varied! So, an avaerage was the best that could be achhived - requiring several repeated measurements. But, of course, none of the individual measurements, or even the Average of them all delivered a real Law. Yet in everyday processes, and even in school experiments: this was the method used.

The Technological Way:

In Industry, the Natural Way certainly wasn't good enough, so there the Situation was controlled as rigidly as possible, by keeping containing conditions as constant as possible: and purifying the active components as much as possible!

The Scientific Way:

This takes the Technological Way as it Data and Primary Laws as means, but Theoretically it uses Mathematical Rationality to build further extensions into the Science's Discipline.

The Holist Way:

Now, Holism is still in its infancy, as regards Science-in-general, but has been extensively used in developing a Critique of Capitalist Economics, along with echoes in History and Biology, by Marx primarily, and by others less comprehensively!

But, the multi-millennia-long sojourn of Plurality within the Sciences, has in time, strongly enabled an effective Technology, while doing literally nothing for effecting also an Explanatory Science. For though that was sufficient to lead to a veritable explosion in Effective Technological Development, it also led all the Sciences ever deeper into the mire, explanation-wise - so that, by now, many demanding areas within literally all the Sciences are slipping into irretrievable purely speculative chaos, which will only get worse unless-and-until an effective Holistic and Explanatory Approach is extensively both instituted and developed, to finally allow the construction of real Explanatory Theories to be established.

But that, of course, is much easier said than done, for the old trick used within Plurality of establishing totally unchanging areas in which to both reveal and develop Laws, turns out to be either impossible or wholly self-defeating within Holism. The use of those Maintained Stabilities (that were once assumed to be permanent) is now impossible!

But, as it happens, (wholly Temporary) Stabilities DO indeed occur, in our Holistic World, but, in time, they will always collapse unto what are termed Emergences. In spite of their non-permanent nature, these stable interludes alone make possible the crucial introductions of various important Macro Forms of Organisation, above and significantly affecting all the possible single Processes of Plurality, actually contained within them.

For, individual Processes do NOT act alone, and, therefore, are NEVER sufficient to solely determine outcomes!

First they always are acting multiply together with others, both simultaneously and over time! And, as such, they require multiple, different and necessary resources, yet consequently produce multiple identical outcomes for each kind of process!

And they will always be accompanied by other different processes, with their resource requirements and consequent outputs!

And, these will often be essential to a particular concurrent process - both delivering its necessary resources, and requiring their ultimately produced outcomes!

Very clearly, you will NEVER be able to predict overall outcomes purely in terms of single well-defined processes. The overall Nexus of everything involved must profitably and continullay mesh!

And apart from internally produced resources, within the overall System, there will be necessarily-maintained inflows from outwith that overall System: and their relative abundances would enable one or two to effective dominate, via the abundance of their outcomes. With the usual kind of mix, with many difference processes, and measures of outcomes would quickly reveal which process was the most abundant and hence Dominant overall!

NOTE:

This reflects exactly what occurs in most inadequate School Experiments, supposedly effectively Pluralist!
Clearly, this account is far from complete and will be continued in a following paper!

Noam Chomsky's Philosophy

Noam Chomsky's intellectual approach (and what it lacks)

After watching the latest video from Noam Chomsky on YouTube - another wide-ranging philosophical contribution upon Human Thinking and Understanding, with its relation to our changing Conceptions of Reality - it became increasingly clear that, to him, this was NOT the development of various different attempts to both formulate accurate accounts describing that Reality, only in the common form of an increasingly competent, developed Language, but also never, as a revealing critique of its current contexts of different Social Organisations, involving ideas for its necessary improvement.

In his dealing with the relations between that Thinking, and the Reality it was attempting to describe, he only considers the internal relations and inadequacies of such Thinking, as the only possible-and-effective means of in any way addressing our world.

It was a wholly intellectual approach!

However, in spite of great historical breadth and an increasing intellectual depth, he also insisted upon what he saw as its intrinsic and sometimes unavoidable failures, as well as its seemingly built-in limitations.

But, Chomsky is neither a Scientist nor an Artisan of any kind: he only contributed conceptions concerned solely with Thinking-as-such, without involving any concrete means of, not only testing his ideas in Reality, but also, as Mankind had always done, not finding solutions in any consequent, concrete interactions within that Reality-as-is!

And, towards his conclusion, it also became clear that he was exclusively describing the imposed, if diverse, stances of various sections of the Ruling Class, as the only possible, as well as unavoidable-and-natural consequences of the processes involved, in only that developing system, over time.

He considered it as the sole engine of all development. He is clearly an Idealist!

So, in spite of his apparently "leftist" reputation, he had literally nothing-to-say about what had occurred in Socialist Thinking, throughout his extensive and detailed contribution. It, overall, reflected the dominant Liberal/Left Stance, most clearly exemplified in US politics, and, consequently-and-crucially also had absolutely nothing to say about real Social Alternatives, or amazingly, even intellectually about the major Pluralist/Holist diversions in Human Thinking within the last 2,500 years!

He was, therefore, wholly preoccupied with only what he saw to be both the only real means of progress, as well as the Natural and unavoidable limitations of that same Human Thinking: and consequently-but-inadvertantly, went on to demonstrate that very same limitation, even in his own analysis, dictated by his chosen-and-privileged ideas of intellectuals ONLY!

Noam Chomsky on Natural Law

At no point, did he ever address the Idealism and Materialism aspects of Philosophy, and, in particular, had zero to say upon the Dialectical Materialism of Karl Marx, and its role in the Major Social Revolutions of the 20th century. Nor, of course, did he trace the declines, both in historical gains, and within its own self-defeating short-comings, in the hands of its Theoretical developments and Political Organisational Forms.

Frankly, by his contribution in this event, you would think that he had given an extremely comprehensive account, but that was very far from the Truth. Indeed, the actual significant interactions of openly Marxist Parties in the active motivation of the Masses, into effective political action, including their damaged successes in the largely still-feudal countries, such as Russia and China, and their universal failures in the advanced Capitalist Countries of the West.

And, of course, absolutely NO acknowledgement of the fact that Dialectical Materialism was never ever comprehensively extended beyond the area of Capitalist Economics - including absolutely no such attempt to develop that key methodology across the whole range of Sciences, or absolutely crucially into either Philosophy or Language - so that consequently, it had nothing to say upon the reactionary developments in Sub Atomic Physics, and no absolutely essential and transforming contributions in Biology - particularly concerning the study of Evolution.

It was clear that throughout this presentation, Chomsky was NOT explaining his position to ordinary working people - for his whole approach was aimed at privileged middle class intellectuals, like himself, as the language he used totally betrayed his target audience, very clearly indeed!

And, I have myself suffered from exactly that type of deliberate exclusion - for though I have worked as a professional educator all my adult life, my paternal Grandmother could neither read nor write, and my Father (her son) was always an unskilled labourer. Throughout my successful career, I always refused to ape "my betters", and kept my Northern Working Class accent! So, I was usually treated as someone, who wouldn't understand the intricacies of Real Intellectual Argument, until I deigned to join in and prove the theses of "my self-assumed betters" wrong!

The method always employed in such Public Lectures (and Discussions) always uses the Names or Titles of Arguments, rather than explaining their actual contents, so that, unless you are constantly involved in such ideas with all of your time, you would not know what they meant, and your consequent "lack of understanding" would invariably be put down to your stupidity. And so, to terminate any possible explanations from me, the deliverer would show great surprise at one's ignorance of such essential Titles!

My own education, concentrating primarily upon Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, of course suffered from the same "Intellectualism", as I am here describing with Chomsky. But my Working Class background indelibly imprinted by my upbringing and status, always impelled me to attempt to transcend its clear limitations. Initially this broadened my interests to include, first Painting, and then Sculpture, and finally Computing - and slowly, in particular, due to the way I was treated in my chosen career. I was first a schoolteacher among my own Social Class, and then later in a Grammar School (educating the children of the Middle Class), after which I spent 10 years in a Further Education College teaching mature Working Class students how to program computers, along with the very best skill training Engineers for Local Industries.

I finally, after many rejections, I got a post in Higher Education, but it was only possible by attempting to get such a post abroad. I got a job in a Polytechnic in Hong Kong, where I was soon promoted to Senior Lecturer. And returning home to the UK on completion of my contract, I got a similar post in Glasgow in Scotland, where within 2 years, I was promoted to Principle Lecturer.

I decided to terminate my teaching, and concentrated instead solely upon devising and producing tailor-made Computer Software aids for researchers across the whole range of disciplines, which significantly adjusted my conceptions of Theory: as I had to help deliver exactly what my Discipline Expert Required!

And during the 1980s, many important Programmes and published research Papers were produced.

Finally, in a Director of Computing role, first in Bedford and finally in London University, I worked with an exceptional teacher of Dance Performance and Choreography, to deliver the Control and Flexibility she required, in using recorded footage of exemplar performances, that was subsequently used all over the world.

This career was sadly terminated early due to ill health, but working entirely from home I continued producing original research and software tools, and when this became impossible due to my failing eyesight, I worked with my son, Michael, who by then was a PhD, and a lecturer in Leeds University, to attempt to tackle the inadequacies of Intellectualism in Philosophy!

SHAPE Journal was my attempt to tackle Philosophy differently... 

This undertaking has taken me 14 years, 12 of these publishing over 150 issues of SHAPE Journal and this blog, involving over 1,000 separate papers. The initial project was to tackle the mess descended into within Modern Sub Atomic Physics, particularly addressing the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and the Modern Version of Cosmology, arising from the Copenhagen Stance. And latterly an extension of Dialectical Materialism in dealing with Modern Science...

Now, I will not even try, at this stage, to "correct" Chomsky's claims on the impossibility of explaining Effective Causal Explanations, which is the universal cornerstone of all his diverse arguments about the Impossibility of Real Understanding - because, in his particular restricted presentation of that problem, he was correct! 

But, in spite of his seemingly comprehensive arguments, he omitted (or more likely was totally unaware of) the effect of the alternative to his universally Pluralistic intellectual stance, in all the means that he referred to in his otherwise comprehensive treatment. And that was because, ever since the Greek Intellectual Revolution, almost 2,500 years ago, the only way literally ANY consistent and effective Rationality was considered possible, was by limiting the experiences involved to solely pluralist situations - which did NOT allow any real Qualitative changes, and, hence, would, if rigorously implemented, profoundly limit all relations to fixed exclusively quantitative Laws, so the Rationality involved could never ever explain the real Essence of an Evolving Reality, which is therefore definitely limited to both Constant Laws, and only episodic, and always inexplicable Qualitative Changes - NEVER involving significantly any reasons for those changes.

And, to ever address explicitly such changes, situations would have to be Holistic - as was defined at the same time as the Greek Intellectual Revolution, but wholly separately, by The Buddha, many thousands of miles away in India!

Now, neither subsequent Western Plurality nor Eastern Holism, ever dealt comprehensively-and-explicably with a qualitatively developing World, and Mankind's uses of their consequent ideas to understand Actual Development does not yet exist!

For, Reality does not conform completely, with either of these simplifications of it, mainly because, in both cases, the occurrence of the many, clearly obvious Stabilities, were never understood correctly!

Plurality, in fact, made Stability the basis of Everything! Whereas Holism failed to understand their persisting occurrences, completely, making Constant Change its credo! And Mankind, for a very long period indeed, could countenance no other method, when relying exclusively upon a Single Conformity occurring straight-through all possibilities.

The idea of an actually-existing Hierarchy of different Rationalities, at different Levels, as well as the actual causal connections occurring between those apparently independent Levels, were for a long period, totally outside of any such considered possibilities - until thinkers like Karl Marx and Charles Darwin began to reveal irrefutable evidence of such important natural transitions, simultaneously with innumerable contradictory components, strongly keeping situations as they were over long periods of time!

How can you even approach these questions without reference to Marx and Darwin?

Indeed, Contradiction was considered an absolute anathema!

And until Contradiction was properly understood (outside of the formalisms of Logic), such changes would certainly remain wholly inexplicable - and so they are inexplicable to Chomsky! In the universally-applied Mathematical Rationality, all Contradiction was dismissed as impossible, and therefore revealing an error of Logic! And, it wasn't until Mankind's breadth of Study was extended well beyond the Strictly Local, in both Time and Space, that such things could no longer be avoided.

Nevertheless, most "theorists" had developed their theories separated from the Real World, and instead as a wholly cerebral exercise, and so could never personally implement any of their then necessary experiments, so to even carry them out they had to employ skilled artisans and engineers, to achieve behaving systems for them.Yet, their both avid and universal subscription to the Principle of Plurality, could not be lightly dumped, as it did successfully "legitimise" the reliable Production of manufactured goods, both solved-and-delivered by those artisans and workers, and especially for the leisured intellectuals, who were never involved successfully in such activities anyway, and so didn't consider whether they were legitimate or not - but only that they delivered the objects and services that they required.

Yet, an ever-growing army of artisans and engineers, whose credo pragmatic credo was "If it works, it is right!", were increasingly rejecting the intellectual, theoretical stances of the scientists, and, in particular, the incredible-but-necessary theoretical assumptions of Modern Sub Atomic Theory, and always instead trusted their own Pragmatic arrangements and understandings, at which they were the consummate masters, and were always relied upon by those theorists, to make their experiments fit their way-out theories!

You may well wonder how this arrangement ever worked out, until, that is, you see the kind of Mathematics that the theorists always resorted to, to make it fit. For that Discipline, being wholly Pluralistic, naturally extended well beyond Reality-as-is, and well-into Ideality, so when the technicians were setting up the required experiment, they too could do the Maths, so they would physically organise the experiment to artificially deliver exactly what the Pluralist Theory predicted!

It was an unhappy coalition, as far as the pragmatists were concerned, and they increasingly began to look elsewhere for Real Theory. This situation has led, in Physics, to what is termed The Electric Universe alternative! And while this alternative was compromised by its Pragmatism, it has certainly challenged the conformist position in both Sub Atomic Physics and Cosmology, with valuable and demanding alternatives!

You can read more about the pros and cons of this in the latest issue of SHAPE journal:

Issue 72 of SHAPE Journal: Is the Universe Electric?

 

Read the Issue

What is the Electric Universe? 

This edition examines the controversial Electric Universe group of physicists and their ideas, comparing them to the consensus position in Cosmology, and attempting to reveal both of their inadequacies, regarding a shared basis in Pluralist thinking. 

If we were to judge Electric Universe solely by their representation in the mainstream media and in popular science writing, we would quickly discard their contribution entriely, as pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories, lacking in any evidence or even brand it a dubious cult. Have a little read of this article from Vice magazine for a flavour of the discourse in question. Electric Universe adherents are called believers, rather than investigators, in the writing, and the substance of their ideas is written-off as total crackpottery. 

SHAPE Journal takes a more nuanced position to these matters. There are certainly major problems with much of what falls under the Electric Universe banner - but the project seems to be a surprisngly broad church - and one that welcomes many outsider scientists and non-conformist thinkers in Physics, that actually have something worthwhile to say. Some of the research undertaken by people affiliated or associated with the Electric Universe, is actually rather good indeed - but doesn’t seem to benefit in terms of credibility, from their link with EU. 

The Electric Universe was established by Wallace Thornhill in 1994, and now has a fervant worldwide following and annual conference. In 2007, Thornhill published a book with David Talbott under the same name, and this became something of a bible for the movement, alongside the film they made, Thunderbolts of the Gods. The guiding principal, is that electricity is the most important force in the Universe and Plasma is the dominant form of matter. 

Jim Schofield first became aware of Thornhill on Youtube, during the early stages of his research into Substrate Theory, as Thornhill also seemed to insinuate the presence of some hidden substrate - a sort of reformulated Aether theory being necessary to explain the propogation of Electromagnetic radiation across the Universe. He also seemed to reject the mathematical reductionism in Physics that Schofield was pushing against in his own research. Unfortunately, Thornhill went no further down this road - and it quickly became apparent that the leader of this movement had no coherent integrated basis for these ideas, no over-arching theory at all in fact - and that he and his closest followers were worryingly prone to fishy mythological references and conjecture, relying on rhetoric rather than evidence to support their arguments. Despite all of the gaps, the absence of evidence for many of their ideas and lack of quality control on the research that falls under the EU umbrella, there is some interesting stuff to be found there - Gareth Samuel’s “See the Pattern” videos being one such example.

Plasma research and Plasma Cosmology theories seem to be the source of the best contributions the extended Electric Universe family has to offer. Work on plasma filaments, the Structured Atomic Model and various hints at some electrical medium pervading space, all have potential with verifiable ideas being postulated. 

Both Plasma Cosmology and Jim Schofield’s Substrate Universe, attempt somewhat similar things - reexplaining physical phenomena in space, using only known particles of matter (Leptons) in various different arrangements and states, linking up the Universe in various ways, allowing the propagation of EM radiation and the construction of vast electrical and magnetic fields, if not gravitational ones too. Both offer materialist solutions without recourse to the mathematical idealism we see in the mainstream - spooky action at a distance, Quantum Entanglement or Uncertainty, for example. 

It certainly seems possible that these nascent sciences could end up supporting one another, or even combining, to construct a new view of the physical Universe grounded solidly in material reality, and its observable electromagnetic properties. For this reason, and others, Jim Schofield has given the Electric Universe gang a little more time than most theoretical physicists would, with particular interest in the front line of Plasma research. 

Digging deeper reveals other important connections. For Schofield, Eric Lerner’s research into Plasma and Fusion Reaction, is some of most exciting happening today - certainly pointing towards a much more holistic way of conducting Physics research, and scientific experiments, more broadly. 

Although not directly associated with Electric Universe, in the video below we see Lerner talking with Gareth Samuel about Fusion Energy, Plasma and Cosmology. The unacknowledged role that Plasma plays in the Universe is of key concern to both Lerner and the wider Electric Universe crowd, who see plasma filaments as vital to linking up their electrical stars and galaxies. 

Whether or not all these ideas have much merit, Lerner has certainly shown both the importance of Plasma in understanding the Universe, and that much of the received wisdom in Cosmology is not settled at all - the Electric nature of the Universe is still open to question.

Issue 72

An Intrinsic Redshift: Did Halton Arp have a point?

Halton Arp

The Electric Universe brigade talk about a cosmic Redshift that isn’t caused by a Doppler Effect transforming the frequencies being observed. They assume instead that it is intrinsic to special modes of production within atoms at the birth of a new entity from out of the minor axis of a producing Galaxy (as Halton Arp has suggested, but as a purely Observational Astronomer was unable to explain). This infers that in the throes of such a birth, the state of the Universal Substrate within atoms is modified to give different “Quantized orbits” and hence affect the spectra modified by absorption and production processes by such atoms.

Now, presumably, the usual explanation of the radiation, emitted by atoms, assumes a particular Substrate context – say, in the more usual form of the Substrate contained within atoms, while that context must be temporarily modified at that birth, to only gradually be returned to normal over time! For then, distortion of that substrate in the external conditions, will definitely begin to affect the electron orbits back to the normal forms. This might be the only intrinsic modification of the emissions and absorptions in radiation, and hence will, in such extreme cases, effect the redshift too!

NOTE: As Redshifts are so common, it would seem that the electron orbits must all be at lower energies, so that transitions down to lower energy levels will also be lower – towards the red end of the spectrum.

Now, we know that Solid, Liquid and Gas concentrations of atoms do not change the characteristic frequencies of emitted or absorbed radiation, so those modes certainly cannot change how atoms normally work. To find intrinsic modifications of the characteristic frequencies, we must consider extreme circumstances not usually encountered in the normal phase modes.

But, if very special creation-conditions were involved in the production of such an Arp Entity, which dramatically affect the contained Universal Substrate within it, that would also affect the insides of atoms, whatever phase they were in, and hence deliver the effects we are trying to explain.

ASIDE: It cannot be pure chance that allows so many inexplicable phenomena to be so easily explained via the supposition of a Universal Substrate!

It could well be that normal phases are not extreme enough to make significant changes to the substrate. What must be involved will be conditions well beyond the usual ones - indeed some sort of Galactic Emergence!

It could be when stable concentrations of the Substrate are well outside the normal – where, for example Matter is very highly concentrated, as in a Black Hole, or, alternatively, very sparsely concentrated, as at, or “beyond”, the Edge of the Universe! This being the case, we can assume that, within such an entity, the nature of the Substrate inside it can be significantly changed, so that the natural quantised orbits will occur at different radii, with different energy levels, due to the changes in the nature of the Substrate and its vortices associated with such orbits.

If we also go the opposite extreme and consider the effects around the Edges of such a Paved Universe, then, once more, the electron orbits within the atom will be changed but in the opposite direction, due to the sparse nature of the Substrate.

Now, if these extreme cases are to throw light upon such things as the redshift we will have to consider very carefully, what will be changed. Obviously, when general radiation is so “red-shifted” (as seems to be the case for distant sources), we must adjust our measurements, to include the fact that we will always be looking into the past, at times long ago, as well as into the far distance.

It seems that, in this pretty well universal case, we may well be talking about the possible evolution of the Universal Substrate. It is unlikely to have always been there, exactly as we conceive of it now!

It must have changed over time, as did everything else, and therefore could not have been completely unaffected by the developments with which it had to be connected. Remember, because looking into the distance in Space also means looking into the distant past, we already have evidence for the developments of Stars and even Galaxies.

For example, if some kind of Big Bang did happen, how does the establishment of the Universal Substrate fit into that vastly-changing scenario? And, even if some form of the Substrate preceded that Big Bang, it would unavoidably be successively modified both by that calamitous Event and its following consequences, with effects sweeping outwards from that “Point of Origin”.

In addition, we have to consider a natural “Temperature” of the Substrate over time.

The Substrate could always have contained a measure of Energy, either in the internal orbits of its component units, or in “whole unit” spins or oscillations or translational travel too! Hence the propagation of other energy would be promoting the internal orbits to levels above those necessary for their establishment, and to a general energy state of a whole region – its “Temperature”!

This being the case, we have to consider how propagation would be affected.

Remember, we have assumed that the propagation via the Substrate does not alter the nature of the so-called radiation: whatever it is, it will be propagated totally unchanged!

But first, how does our unit of Substrate manage that, and secondly, how may this be changed by circumstances?

NOTE: If the theories (of this researcher) concerning the role of the Universal Substrate, within an atom, and concerning quantized electrical orbits, are correct, the vortices caused within that substrate, by the orbiting of an electron, will be changed, if the Substrate differs from the classical form during extreme circumstances.

Clearly, if, for example, the density of the Substrate units were significantly changed (for some external reasons), the necessary matching of the orbit with the rotations of its caused vortices to, thereafter, cause quantized orbits would also change, and the orbits will be at different radii (and different energy levels) though still close to what they were in normal circumstances. We must determine how the behaviour of the vortices will be affected in a more densely packed Substrate within the atom.

Now, if this caused the transitions between energy levels to be slightly lower, the energy of the released radiation would be less, and the frequency would undergo a Redshift – one that is intrinsic to the “atom plus Substrate system” in those conditions. Also, a crucial factor (perhaps within, or very close to, a Black Hole) could involve a truly massive matter density, which might well distort the relationship between the orbiting electrons and the Substrate.

The more pressing problem is to explain redshift that is merely from distant and past objects, but is internal rather than due to Doppler Shift. How could the radiation be altered either in initial production within the atom, or in transit while being propagated by units of the substrate?

NOTICE: the very different demands upon Theory, between fitting purely formal (or even statistical) patterns to measured data, and the alternative of explaining that data via physical reasons in some form of concrete analogistic model. The former method is purely formal, includes no content or context information: it is merely a quantitative form-fitting to ideal mathematical forms, whereas the latter MUST involve both content and context and explain phenomena in terms of substances and their properties in particular defining conditions.

You can find more on Redshift, Aether and Substrate Theory in the latest Special Issue of SHAPE.

The Family of Differently-Orientated Physicists

Physicists come in many shapes and sizes

Coming as I do from the Working Class, I was at first only aware of one kind of scientist. There were none in my immediate family, as my dad was an unskilled labourer and my mother was a sewing-machinist working for the Co-op. But, nevertheless, every street, in the district where I lived in Manchester, had its skilled technical worker, and the best (as far as I could see) were those that could make broken things work again "as-good-as-new!". They loved engines, and clever machines, and because of their detailed experiences could find out what was wrong, and fix-it!

They were actually Mechanics. But they were also part of a continuum stretching all the way up to Engineers.

Perhaps surprisingly, these types also occurred in a Science like Physics as a special breed of Experimenters, who co-existed in the same discipline as the Theorists, and also along with the application Producers: but, again surprisingly, rarely did a single individual occupy all three of these categories.

Indeed, often the Producers separated themselves off as Engineers; while the Experimenters served Theorists as actually both enabling their required Experiments, and even confirming their theories via well-designed tester-experiments.

But, such divisions also soon became legion in all the Sciences, and the knowledge-bases of these various specialisms seemed to constantly move ever further-apart from each other, so that if a mix of all three wasn't in place within an able team, the results produced became increasingly limited in scope, and also in success!

For example, a request to a theorist for help with a technical problem would rarely result in a solution. While a request for an explanation as to why something behaved in a particular way to an Engineer would also fail more often than it should.

Now, I managed to become a qualified Physicist, but was only taught Theory during my extensive education.

University of Leeds, 1960s, where I studied Physics

It was stimulating intellectually while I was at school, but if you required a solution to anything technical, you had to ask a Technician. And, this was true at every level even to when I became a Lecturer in a College.

Questions about faults in my house invariably meant a visit to the Engineers.

But, as I was to ultimately discover, these divisions of labour were not determined solely by the participants' aptitudes, but fundamentally by major Impasses generated due to important concepts in the Reasoning associated with various different areas.

Let me clarify!

Though, within certain areas, reasoning could allow some explanations and solutions to be achieved, at certain very crucial points, these impasses always occurred - effectively prohibiting lines of reasoning from traversing them, and continuing beyond them. So, these impasses became no-go areas, or boundaries, and so divided up areas of study into separate "specialisms", within which logical consequences could be traced and used: but which always terminated at each and every one of these impasses.

And, it took over 2000 years to be understood! But, a mere 200 years ago, the German Philosopher Hegel found out why they occurred. Mankind had little or no intellectual development for almost all of its time as a separate species, because of their isolated Hunter/Gatherer mode of life, so most concepts only began to be considered after the Neolithic Revolution, when people began to live together, in static communities, and in larger groups, and begin to discuss. So, our concepts were never then, and still are not, even now, exactly correct. In fact, they are all always approximate to some extent, and when used in Reasoning are therefore guaranteed to be occasionally delivering such impasses.

In fact, the Formal Logic, used in literally all Reasoning, has always had a grave fault, inherited from Greek Mathematics, which also begat Greek Formal Logic: for it treats all concepts as fixed, because they are pluralist disciplines, which actually enable most of their manipulative qualities - and hence cause their users to stick-tightly to that assumption, even though it actually isn't true. Hegel attempted to correct Formal Logic by revealing and correcting such impasses, but the problem wasn't totally eliminated, for the key disciplines used in Science are all pluralist too, and the effective extension of Hegelian Dialectics to Reasoning in these disciplines has still not yet been comprehensively addressed. And, its further application to the material World in general hasn't either.

So, the three Physics specialisms referred to earlier, have their experts, who can only deliver within their limiting-impasses as boundaries, and the only way to ever proceed MUST involve a diverse team, who "pass-the-parcel" between specialists in the hope that one can deliver what is required.

But, clearly, that is certainly NOT the best way to tackle problems is it?

Now, this Physicist, who is also a Dialectical Materialist philosopher, has recently completed a major criticism of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Sub Atomic Physics, which he had to undertake alone, as he found no others similarly-equipped to help.

But, he did come across the Electric Universe Group, who certainly had some positions in common with him - although some pretty strange ideas too.

They were, it seemed, all defined by the above-described Impasses, and came from the so-defined specialism of Engineers. They too rejected the most recently defined Group of Theorists, who have even abandoned Physical Explanation, and now deal solely in Mathematics along with the Pragmatist tenet of "If it works, it is right!", which our Engineers also subscribe to, though they jib at the Mathematics-as-cause belief, which is what Physical Theory has now become.

For, as most mathematical frigs were invented by Engineers, they know better than to turn them into Theory!

Frankly, this theoretical Physicist could do with some Electrical Universe members on his team, but perhaps only as Engineers and Experimenters. Their 'Theory' leaves a lot to be desired, even if some of the problems and gaps they highlight are true.

"If they put up with the Mathematical Theorists, I'm sure they could put up with me!"

While Wal Thornhill's Electric Universe "Theory" seems to occupy similar territory to the criticisms of contemporary Physics published in SHAPE, he never fully explains any of his ideas. EU Theory is severely lacking, perhaps because he is an Engineer, and these categories/impasses persist, unresolved.

The God of the Gaps

The Electric Universe's God of the Gaps

With a significant presence online, and many anomalies to present, The Electric Universe tendency (and other similar individuals) easily get a receptive hearing!

BUT clearly, a mere identification-of-anomalies can only be the first step. So, serious critics of the current consensus in Physics and Cosmology tend to come across these people as potential allies, or at least fellow critics of mainstream thought, and therefore seek out their criticisms in the search for more evidence towards a possible alternative stance.

"The story of the cosmos that you see in the media now is virtual reality" - Wallace Thornhill

As a qualified physicist, myself, with a long opposition to the currently dominant Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and a lifetime of theoretical work in establishing an essential, alternative stance, and finding very few people with the same objectives, have viewed a whole series of YouTube contributions from that tendency, where they too seem to have alighted upon the same anomalies that I also have considered to be crucial flaws in the current stance. And, in many, there has been a valuable revelation of anomalies that really do need addressing theoretically.

But, there is also a profound similarity between The Electric Universe, their scientific approach and method, and the scientists of both the pre-Copenhagen, so-called Classical period, AND, perhaps surprisingly, the Copenhageners too! For, philosophically, they all have an identical acceptance of the Scientific Method, the role of mathematical equations in encapsulating what had been revealed, and most importantly of all - incorporating an entirely Pluralist stance.

And, such a tradition can never go on to tackle the most important questions in Science, namely, "WHY does a particular phenomenon behave in the way that it does: what are the real causes involved?"

Let us see why this was inadequate in the past, is now inadequate with the Copenhagenists, and was even continued, thereafter, with the Bohm/De Broglie critics, and finally is also true of these latest opponents of current conformity. They believe that Reality behaves as it does in total conformity to separate and eternal Natural Laws, which can be completely encapsulated in purely mathematical Equations. They, therefore, conform absolutely to the Principle of Plurality, which demands precisely that. But, it isn't true!

If anything, the exact opposite Principle of Holism is far closer to the truth - by stating that "Everything affects everything else!" and hence makes all laws determined by both their history and their current-context, so that they inevitably vary and even evolve over time.

Indeed Plurality only rules in totally stable situations, either natural or organised-for, so it never informs situations involving Qualitative Change! The History and Development of Reality is totally beyond it, as are all current Interludes of Change at all levels. Indeed, the incorrect assumption of Plurality always did profoundly affect not only Science, but also Mathematics, and even Formal Logic. And this, when subscribed to, along with the oldest-and-most-persisting stance of Pragmatism - "If it works, it is right!", has enabled amalgams of wholly contradictory stances, such as Idealism and Materialism, to both be used "in their relevant compartments", in what has been claimed to be the agreed stance of Science for many centuries.

Indeed, the recognition of "Change" was almost simultaneous with the basic gains of the ancient Greeks, but ignored, and though also significantly addressed by Hegel 200 years ago, it has never conquered Science.

So, I could follow that tradition to the present day developments Philosophy (and I have done so elsewhere), but here something far-more-basic is involved, which torpedoes the discussion immediately!

It is the look to Religion for the Causes of Reality's Nature.

Let us see how our new critics of consensus Science manage to achieve this.

But, to make any sort of sense of these people, you really have to be aware of what role they have usually played within Science-as-it-currently-is!

Within Science, there has arisen, historically, a series of divisions-of-labour, precipitated by the unavoidable contradictions in the consensus stance.

Two areas, dominated by Pragmatism separated-out very quickly: they were the Experimentalists and the Implementers of productive outcomes - the technicians or Engineers! For, their justification was delivering what they had set out to achieve - either a do-able experiment with results, or a working consequent product.

In both cases, an explanation of why things behaved as they did, was not considered as important as what was in fact delivered! And, the key things achieved by one, and used by the other, were the formal Equations or fixed Laws that could be passed directly from the former group to the latter. And, in addition, their employed skills were very similar - to deliver the required conditions for those laws. Pragmatism was king in both areas!

There always was, of course, another group within Science, who did attempt to explain why things behaved as they did - they were the Theorists, but they always had several major problems. If they delivered materialist explanations, they would, invariably, come up against the Religious world view and explanations - [Galileo is a particular example]. And, to deal with their colleagues, the pragmatic experimenters and engineers, they too had to deal in Equations - a wholly Idealist stance, so they were in difficulties there too!

Indeed, towards the end of the 19th century the contradictions were already proliferating, and it was long before Bohr and Heisenberg campaigned for the total jettisoning of materialism in Physics, and at the 1927 Solvay Conference they challenged Einstein and Schrödinger and won! The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory was their stance, and it soon swept across the whole of Sub Atomic Physics.

Idealism dominates...

Now, as will be obvious from this paper, I have a very different objective from either the consensus group in physics, or their opponents in the God-of-the-Gaps camp!

So, that latter group have shot themselves in the foot in the oldest way possible.

It is, therefore, not surprising where they position their "researches": they don't do Sub Atomic Physics or any other area of Physics - they stick to Electrical Engineering, and interpreting other scientists results, particularly in Cosmology - an area that is impossible to deal with in the established earthbound ways. It is mostly speculation then, re-casting descriptions rather than explaining published cosmological observations, and laboratory experiments supposed to reveal direct knowledge of what goes on in the Sun.

It is a secure realm!

Though Modern Physics is already drastically limited in its current state, this group have found the ideal area for them to indulge their even more limited set of questions, not only for them to speculate about profusely, but also where they are unlikely to be countered by the rest of Modern Physics, who themselves are in their deepest crisis ever!

The Electric Universe & The New Dialectical Physics

Having returned to re-assessing The Electric Universe stance, as a consequence of encouraging developments in my own Dialectical Physics, I found both interesting resonances, but also very clear bifurcations, clearly due to the very different origins of the two stances.

Yet, both approaches seem to arrive at very similar positions, in many important areas (though for very different reasons), particularly concerning attitudes to the major retreat that is The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, as well as both Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and The Big Bang Theory in Cosmology.

But, both of these different origins have their merits! And, because mine was initially based upon the crucial need for Materialist Explanation, and then later, upon a developed philosophical critique of the universally-established “western” approach to both Mathematics and Thinking via Formal Logic - that equally involve a surprising amalgam of Pragmatism, Idealism and Materialism, I feel that I can also understand the alternative approach of the supporters of The Electrical Universe, as they seem primarily to be Electrical Engineers and Experimental or Observational scientists, rather than either being Mathematicians, or mathematical physicists, as is now the norm in Sub Atomic Physics. So, the reader will understand, that the resonant strands I have discovered in both views, as well as how they were impelled from both sensible and sufficient grounds, are seen as worthwhile criticisms of the current consensus Copenhagen position.

I have also been a long-time student of Human Prehistory, and surprised by the preponderance, as well as the clear successes of Pragmatism over the vast majority of Mankind’s existence upon Planet Earth. For, long before Civilisation began to be firmly established, this physically weak descendant of the apes, Homo sapiens, had not only conquered Fire, and the making of flint tools, but, geographically, had also spread- out across almost the whole Earth, and even, thereafter, carried-through the remarkable Neolithic Revolution, to significantly change from being mere hunter/gatherers to actual competent farmers, with new skills in Animal Husbandry, Weaving, Pottery-Making and, most crucial of all, growing crops in a settled place, and having an increasingly rich and communal lifestyle. And though, all this was achieved with Intelligence, for sure, it, literally, only involved Pragmatism as its sole intellectual methodology.

So, most certainly, I then had to discover just how Mankind has also inserted both Idealism (as in Pure Mathematics) and Formal Logic, into its Thinking, and integrated all of these with a strongly Materialist stance too. For these are not exactly conducive to one another, yet have persisted, in that remarkable contradictory amalgam even to the present day. The remarkable survival of this amalgam was surely down to a still-strongly-adhered-to Pragmatism - “If it works, it is right!”, which could always be used to paper-over the unavoidable, inherent contradictions, by references to pragmatic successes in concrete Reality.

But, such a contradictory set of simultaneously-held positions was sure to lead to major problems, perhaps most certainly of all in Science. Pragmatic justifications and Applied Mathematical methods may be sufficient in finding productive solutions, but they turn Explanatory Science into a patchwork of cases with more papered-over links than revealing Understanding.

In Theoretical Physics, and increasingly at the Sub Atomic Level, it was becoming an absolutely insupportable mess. So, while the Technologists were forging ahead with ever-more effective applications, particularly in electrical and electronic areas, the theorists were more-and-more delving, ever-deeper, into Elementary Particles, using ever more powerful and expensive kit. Yet, the theories of those physicists were falling apart: they couldn’t string them together into coherent, consistent and comprehensive explanations. Theorists tended to rely more and more upon mathematical forms alone, which they had managed to usefully-fit to phenomena, but increasingly without any underlying physical explanations.

The ultimate resulting situations were becoming inevitable! While the technologists stuck ever closer, via their Pragmatism, to concrete Reality, the theorists began to speculate, from their useable equations, into wholly new idealist entities - governed by rules rather than physically explicable relations.

It should have been no surprise that a major and contrasting alternative, based upon highly competent, materialist-yet-pragmatist technologists, would arise, and, thereby, attempt to do the theorists job for themselves. That seems to be the contribution of The Electric Universe group! They are still wedded to Materialism, but by solely-pragmatic ties.

Now, another group, led by first de Broglie and then Bohm, still sticking fast to the old, classical amalgam of philosophic stances, did attempt to counter the Copenhagen tendency. But, they were bound to fail! For, the main plank of their position was exactly-the-same as that of the Copenhagenists! Both groups subscribed implicitly to the Principle of Plurality.

Now, this premise is very old indeed. It arose, because Mankind’s awareness of Reality was unavoidably limited to a belief in the un-changeability of Reality: most things seemed entirely fixed to them. So, they assumed that Reality was determined by fixed (indeed actually eternal) laws, which were always totally independent-of-context! Now, this certainly isn’t true, and it seriously disabled those critics, just as much as it had their now dominant opponents.

So, a third group was possible, but it did not exist, as yet, within the "Scientific Community”. It did exist, however, in the Philosophic Community, and had been re-invigorated by the German Idealist philosopher Friedrich Hegel, some 200 years before. For he, in his study-area of “Thinking about Thought”, had realised the inadequacies of Formal Logic by being incapable of dealing with Qualitative Changes of any kind whatsoever. So, he built upon Zeno of Elea’s Paradoxes of around 2,300 years earlier, by generalising such contradictions into what he termed Dichotomous Pairs, and put these down to the validity of qualitative changes actually occurring.

Indeed, a much more accurate tenet of Reality was considered to be the Principle of Holism - “Everything affects everything else!”. So, he decided that a thorough-going critique of Formal Logic, based upon the holist position, was absolutely necessary, which for the very first time would accommodate qualitative change, and hence ultimately deliver a Science of Logic. His approach was to seek out Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts, as occurred when un-traversable impasses unavoidably cropped up in Formal Logic. He discovered many of them, and decided that they were due to erroneous, flawed or even missing prior premises, as the cause. So that, if corrected, the impasse would be replaced by a eminently transcend-able bifurcation or fork-in-the-reasoning-path. But, in addition, the actual causes of directly opposite pairs required explaining: and this he did not succeed in delivering. But, he did describe a methodology of addressing the opposites to get at the ”changeable truths” of Reality, which he termed Dialectics.

Now, certain of his followers. especially those well versed in History, such as Karl Marx, immediately recognised that Hegel’s discoveries extended validly a great deal further than just Human Thought: they also applied to developments in human history, and the sequence of economic bases for a succession of societal forms. Indeed, he and his colleagues transferred Hegel’s Dialectics wholesale to concrete Reality itself - to a Materialist Stance, which he termed Dialectical Materialism. Clearly, the prospect of applying these gains to Science was the most exciting revolutionary prospect! But, sadly, it never happened.

Marx was first preoccupied with his primary specialism, History, but also soon realised that he had to tackle Economics to take even that to any necessary conclusions. So, he spent many decades upon Capitalist Economics, in his work, Das Kapital. But, the basic Sciences were never addressed in this comprehensive way.

In spite of single contributions by Lenin and Caudwell in the key area of The Philosophy of Science, absolutely no root-and-branch critique of that Philosophy was ever undertaken by Marxists, and the whole trajectory of developments in Science (and particularly in Physics) has been with the total absence of any postulated dialectical alternative. So, the chaotic mish-mash of contradictory stances still stands, though more and more, currently, as equally inadequate “warring camps”.

Sadly, the justifiable rebellion of, first the neo-Bohmians, and, currently, from those of The Electric Universe persuasion, are both still founded upon alternative amalgams of contradictory stances. Neither have tackled the inadequacies of their long-held underlying assumptions.

The Copenhagenists are entirely without any genuine Materialist Explanations (they have retreated into Mathematics and Speculation), while the Electric Universe adherents are without a comprehensive, consistent and coherent set of explanatory theories (their technological origins are still not only evident, but remain dominant).

So, both of them are also still without any means of breaking-through the inadequacies of their still strictly “pluralist stances” - and the crucial problem of qualitative change is never even considered!

In spite of many valid criticisms put forward by the Electrical Universe adherents, they don’t wash with the Copenhagenists who now “dwell” in an entirely formal World - Ideality. But also do not and indeed cannot present a coherent, eminently extendable alternative. It is like the Technology that produced them, a collection of pragmatic achievements and relatively unsophisticated, though clearly materialist, explanations. They now, more than ever, require the thinking of well-established and well-equipped theorists, which are unobtainable from the Copenhagenist tendency.

It now seems clear to me that an entry into these ranks by Dialectically-competent theorists could make real headway. But, only if the topic of the Philosophy of Science is allowed in, and the assumptions on which these ideas are based, truly challenged. 

This paper has been published in the latest issue of SHAPE Journal, which you can read here.

Red Shift and the "Quantum Bounce" (PART 1)

Introduction

The current evident interest in the idea of a Black Hole/White Hole Bounce which was suggested in order to “explain” the recently observed bursts of Radio Waves in Space, may sound somewhat like that idea of a collapsing Universe immediately turning into an on-going expansion of a seemingly, completely new one - but the theorists involved in the new suggestions don’t make that connection at all, for they are solely concerned with forcibly-adding as much “evidence” as possible into their pre-existing, purely-formal theories – in this case concerned with Loop Quantum Gravity (perhaps).

Hence, the whole exercise is totally non-physical! It amounts to formal/mathematical research, without an overt physical basis, yet again extrapolating to “infinity and beyond”!

But, surely, what is really required is a physical, explanatory assault upon such concrete data, along with the best possible physical models of what are supposed to be the entities and happenings involved? Any purely formal route is doomed to failure, for it has to be an incorrect path with its purely descriptive premises, so that it cannot take real explanation any further!

The physical premises, for those purely formal theories must be exposed, criticised and replaced, and a truly scientific attempt made to explain such phenomena physically undertaken.

The problem is that the total abandonment of explanatory theories in modern day Physics, leaves current theorists without a model to criticise and improve upon. Forms cannot be criticised! We have to work back from their current theories to expose what physical premises were assumed.

An Intrinsic Red Shift?

The Electric Universe group talk about a cosmic Red Shift that isn’t caused by a Doppler Effect - transforming the frequencies being observed. They assume instead that it is intrinsic to different modes of production within the developing atom.

Now, presumably, the usual explanation of radiation emitted by atoms assumes a particular context – say, in a vacuum, or, if not, they must be making the productions totally independent of any context!

Now, it is most probably the latter, but if a Universal Substrate exists, and is present not only as context for all atoms, but turns out to even be present within all atoms too, things could be different! For then, distortion of that substrate in extreme, external conditions, will definitely affect the electron orbits inside atoms, and cause changes in both emission and absorption frequencies, when such orbital transactions occur. This might be the only intrinsic modification of the emissions and absorptions in radiation, and hence will, in such extreme cases, affect the Red Shift too!

NOTE: As Red Shifts are so common, it would seem that the electron orbits must all be at lower energies, so that transitions down to lower energy levels will also be lower – towards the red end of the spectrum.

Now, we know that Solid, Liquid and Gas concentrations of atoms do not change the characteristic frequencies of emitted or absorbed radiation, so those modes of matter cannot change how atoms normally work! To find intrinsic modifications of the characteristic frequencies, we must consider extreme circumstances not usually encountered in the usual matter-phase modes. But, if those extreme conditions were to affect the Universal Substrate, that would also affect the insides of atoms, whatever phase they were in, and hence deliver the effects we are trying to explain. It could well be that normal phases are not extreme enough to make significant changes to the substrate. What must be involved will be conditions well beyond the usual ones.

It could be when stable concentrations of the Substrate are well outside the normal – in circumstances, for example when Matter is very highly concentrated, as in a Black Hole, or, alternatively, very sparsely concentrated, as at, or “beyond”, the Edge of the Universe! This being the case, we can assume that, within such an entity, the nature of the Substrate inside it can be significantly changed, so that the natural quantised orbits  will occur at different radii, due to different energy levels.

If we also go to the opposite extreme and consider the effects around the edges, then, once more, the electron orbits within the atom will be changed but in the opposite direction, due to the sparse nature of the Substrate.

Now, if these extreme cases are to throw light upon such things as the Red Shift, we will have to consider very carefully, what will be changed.

Obviously, when general radiation is so “red-shifted” (as seems to be the case for distant sources), we must adjust our measurements, to include the fact that we will be looking into the past, sometime long ago as well as far into the distance. It seems that, in this pretty well universal case, we may well be talking about the possible evolution of the Universal Substrate. It is unlikely to have always been there, exactly as we conceive it now!

It must have changed over time, as did everything else, and therefore, could not have been completely unaffected by the developments with which it had to be connected.

Remember, because looking into the distance in Space also means looking into the past, we already have evidence for the developments of Stars and even Galaxies.

For example, if some kind of Big Bang did happen, how does the establishment of the Universal Substrate fit into that changing scenario? And, even if some form of the Substrate preceded that Big Bang, it would unavoidably be successively modified both by that calamitous Event and its following consequences, with effects sweeping outwards from that “Point of Origin”.

In addition, we have to consider a natural “Temperature” of the Substrate over time. In current theories of the Universal Substrate it underpins many phenomena that use it as both sink and source for energy.

So the Substrate could always have contained a measure of Energy, either in the internal orbits of its component units, or in “whole unit” oscillations or translational travel too!

Hence the propagation of other energy would be promoting the internal orbits to levels above those necessary for its initial establishment, and any due to a general state of a region – its so-called “Temperature”!

NOTE: Though a particular unit with a promoted internal orbit will immediately demote it by transferring a quantum to another “empty” unit, when a whole area has all units with extra energy they will effectively equalise to the same internal “Temperature”.

This being the case, we have to consider how propagation would be affected. Remember, we have assumed that the Substrate does not alter the nature the propagation of so-called radiation: whatever it is, it will be propagated  totally unchanged! But first, how does our unit of Substrate manage that, and secondly, how may this be changed by circumstances?

NOTE: If the theories (of this researcher) concerning the role of the Universal Substrate, within an atom, and concerning quantized electrical orbits, are true, then the vortices caused in that substrate, by the orbiting of an electron, will be changed, if the Substrate differs from the classical form during extreme circumstances.

Clearly, if, for example, the density of the Substrate units were significantly changed (for some external reasons) the necessary matching of the orbit with the rotations of its caused vortices to bring about quantized orbits would also change, and the orbits will be at different radii (and different energy levels) though still close to what they were in normal circumstances.

We must determine how the behaviour of the vortices will be affected in a more densely packed Substrate within the atom. Now, if this caused the transitions between energy levels to be slightly lower, the energy of the released radiation would be lass, and the frequency would undergo a Red Shift – one that is intrinsic to the “Atom plus Substrate” system in those conditions. Also, a crucial factor (perhaps within or very close to a Black Hole) could involve a truly massive matter density, which might well distort the relationship between the orbiting electrons and the Substrate.

The more pressing problem is to explain the Red Shift that is merely from distant and past objects, but is internal rather than due to Doppler Shift. How could the radiation be altered either in initial production within the atom, or in transit while being propagated by units of the substrate?

A word about method!

Notice the very different demands upon Theory, between fitting formal (or even statistical) patterns to measured data, and the alternative of explaining that data via physical reasons in some form of concrete analogistic model. The former method is purely formal and includes no content or context information: it is merely a quantitative form-fitting to pre-existing ideal mathematical forms, whereas the latter MUST involve both content and context and explain phenomena in terms of substances and their properties in particular defining conditions.

Arp's Quasar-Galaxy associations challenge the received wisdom on Red Shift

 Addendum:

Halton Arp’s astronomical data may well be crucial in alighting upon a reasonable theory of intrinsic Red Shift. His data will have to be carefully studied, but at his Electric Universe Conference presentation he associated Red Shift with the initial creation and development of galaxies, which he gave evidence to show “budded-off” the hubs of mature galaxies and moved away perpendicular to the plane of the parent galaxy. What were most interesting were the changing Red Shifts as these new-born sub-galaxies moved away, for the Red Shift decline in seemingly quantised steps! It inferred that something determined these particular values, either in initial production or as they changed over time.

An explanation of these data if validated more generally, would imply similar possibilities on a galactic scale to those considered on a sub-atomic one – indeed, with a substrate at all levels.

PART 2 of this paper