More inconvenient truths – more about our particles – and

more about mainstream dilemmas.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,

Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
Omar Khayyam

If we could see gravitons we’d know everything about gravity. If

we could see electrons we’d know everything about electricity. If
we could see the interaction of particles with each other then we’d
know everything about the strong and weak nuclear forces. We
can’t see them. We can’t even see an atom. And we certainly
can’t see the forces to explain them. We can only speculate. And
when and if we do speculate then we’re no longer being scientific.
We’re being philosophical.

The confusions that have been visited on this noble art of science is
based on the philosophical reach that science is now trying to
usurp. A scientist does not have the disciplines of logic that are
required for philosophy any more than a philosopher has the
required acuities of observation and measurement that a scientist
has. The difference is only in this. A philosopher does not, as a
rule, dabble in science. But our scientists are shamelessly dabbling
in philosophies. And it is all being done with such disgraceful
parade of poor logic that, in the fullness of time, these last pages of
its history are likely to remain as a source of more than a little
embarrassment. Whole chapters of scientific progress – based on
nothing but pure speculation and the accidental use of concepts
that partially work and partially don’t work. And all of it
presented with a kind of intellectual flourish – a parade of self
aggrandisement that would rival the pride of Lucifer himself.
What I find disgraceful, what is entirely inexcusable is that all this
bad logic is hidden behind an obscure, in fact, an entirely
incomprehensible techno-babble. Terms are presented as
acronyms and all is justified in the language of algebra. Complex
equations drift into ever greater complexities that would confuse
God himself. And all is intended simply to hide the manifold
confusions that actually bedevil science itself.

It is possibly understandable that our experts feel required to

explain ‘all’. But these explanations are drifting into realms of
obscurity that have nothing to do with reason or logic or common
sense or indeed science or philosophy. It has simply become
pretension. What’s euphemistically referenced as theory is
actually just obscure jibberish masquerading as deep intellectual
knowledge. It makes the toes curl. One must be ‘trained’ in
science – of necessity. It is not meant to be understood - certainly
not as propounded by our experts. Their intention is to flaunt a
familiarity with complex abstractions. And to own up to a lack of
understanding would be to let the side down – to somehow admit
to the disgrace of not actually being able to see the emperor’s new
clothes.

Let’s explore some of the confusions – let’s actually focus on the

bare facts - on some of those manifold contradictions which our
mainstream experts defend. Starting with current flow. Now. We
all know that electrical engineering is the applied knowledge of the
electromagnetic force – so ably unfolded by Faraday and
quantified by Maxwell. And so widely applied in today’s
technological revolution. Our satellites, our trips to distant planets
and more to come. Our internet – our computers – our – cars – our
measuring instruments, and on an on. Examples of their skills are
evident everywhere.

And yet. Amongst all those able, those skilled engineers – the vast
majority will insist that electricity is the result of electrons moving
through their circuits in the form of current flow. No matter that
Pauli’s insights depended on the simple fact that electrons do not
share a path. No matter that we have never been able to get
electrons to move in the same direction without forcing them by
the application of some very real energy. No matter that electrons
have a like charge and we could not get them to co-operate with
each other in a shared environment any more than we can get to
souths of two magnets to co-operate. No matter that no-one has
ever found ‘spare’ electrons inside circuit wiring.

Then there’s the pesky problem of charge balance. The chemical

analysis that is so ably applied by our chemistry experts determines
that every single electron inside a cell is fully accounted for in the
formula relating to an electrolytic interaction. This chemical
process will systematically move to neutralise the electrolyte
without losing a single electron from the original molecules within
the cell or any of the atoms which form the electrodes to that cell.
Yet the puzzle then is this. When we recharge that flat battery we
are told that electrons from a utility or any supply source
replenishes that cell with electrons. And this restores that
condition where potential difference is again evident. Where are
our chemists pointing out the impossibility of this?

And if the glove still doesn’t fit – then try another explanation. We
are now told that the actual current flow is the result of one valence
electron somehow influencing a neighbouring electron – in a kind
of domino effect. Here the proposal is that the electrons do not
actually move towards each other but in the same general
direction. Now we’ve got over the ‘shared path’ problem and that
‘no loss of electrons’ number. This would certainly account for
current flow. But the problem is this. Our scientists know the
speed at which one valence electron would influence another
valence electron. And it would take up to half an hour for it to
travel through the average two meters of circuit wire before it
would reach the light to light it or to reach the kettle to heat it.
There would be a required delay between the switching of the
switch and the lighting of the light to get that process started. But,
in all other respects it could – otherwise – have been a reasonable
explanation. But it’s self-evidently spurious.

So. If that glove doesn’t fit then try yet another. We all know that
if electrons were the actual ‘thing’ that was transferred from our
generators by our utility supply sources, then those generators
would need to supply an almost inexhaustible amount of electrons
that somehow turn into photons that also somehow light whole
cities – all of them linked, as is often the case, to a single supply
grid. The truth is that no utility supply source would be able to
access that many electrons.

So. Again. Another glove. Another qualification. We are then

told that actually the electrons themselves are ‘free floating’ and
they intrude into the material of the conductive wiring. They do
not come from the supply source itself. Which also means that
these electrons that are somehow detached from any particular
‘home’ – are floating about in the air belonging to no atoms – just
free for the taking. And we must now get our heads around the
problem that not only is our atmosphere saturated with these
previously undetected little numbers but that they can move into
the circuitry – all over the place, straight through the heavy barriers
of insulation which was first applied to prevent this from
happening, precisely because it’s impossible for electrons to
breach this insulating material.

Challenge any scientist, any chemist, on any of these points and, in

the unlikely event that they continue the conversation, they will do
so in a loud voice and with more than a hint of exasperation. What
gets me every time is their usual defence based as it is on the
statement that I should not question ‘what has been known and
used for centuries now ’. Somehow this is sufficient justification.
And God alone knows why because it certainly it’s not logical. I
would modestly propose that in the light of so much improbability
– it may be proposed that – whatever else it is - current flow is
NOT the flow of electrons, nor, as I’ve seen it suggested even on
these forums, the flow of protons, or ions or anything at all that
belongs to the atom. Else it would be logically evident. And it is
not.

Then to attend to other confusions especially as it relates to

gravity. Gravity – a weak force – apparently permeates the
universe and acts as a kind of ‘glue’ on matter. It only attracts. It
never repels. If, indeed, all began as a Big Bang – then all that
energy will systematically deplete until there is a kind of Big
Crunch – where all disappears into the void that proceeded that
bang. Just as the electron is the ‘carrier’ of electrical energy – the
graviton is philosophised to carry the gravitational energy. But the
graviton has not been seen. Yet all is explained as if such a
particle were extant. Millions of dollars, euros, rupees, whatever,
have been spent on trying to find the smallest ripple in the vast
space time continuum around us and beyond us - in those
seemingly infinite reaches of space.

Where is the evidence of this little particle? Not even the faintest
of faintest of these ripples has been found. Not a whisper. Not a
shadow. Notwithstanding which we’re assured that this lack of
evidence is actually not a problem. It is not considered to be
sufficient reason to preclude the particle nor to discontinue the
experiments. We are told to ignore the ‘absence of evidence’. A
trivial requirement, a small stepping stone. Because eventually
this required evidence must surely come to hand. And until then –
and in its absence – it is to be regarded and referenced as a FACT.
This because our philosophical scientists are no longer requiring
evidence to support a theory. It’s enough to just balance those
interminable equations – those indecipherable and
incomprehensible sums.
Now. While it is understood that gravity is attractive – and ONLY
attractive to all matter – for some reason our universe is not
drifting towards a Big Crunch. On the contrary. Space is
EXPANDING. And this is now also referenced as FACT. It
seems that it’s enough for two schools to have reached the
identical conclusion to establish a new scientific reality. No-one
questions the logic that supported this conclusion. But there’s a
small caveat. The galaxies and stars and planets are not
expanding. It’s the actual space between them that – like poor
little Alice stuck inside a rabbit hole – that is actually growing ever
bigger and bigger. And all this space is expanding at a predictable
rate and is responsible for systematically propelling great clumps
of matter apart from other great clumps of matter – all at a
consistent and quantifiable velocity.

Those that subscribe to this new evidence are careful NOT to

reference the evidence of galaxies colliding – as this would put
paid to their sums. And those that do not subscribe – carefully do
not reference these same galaxial collisions – for the same but
opposite reasons. I’ll get back to this point. But for now the point
is this. If space is expanding, and yet galaxies collide – then that
expansion is either not smooth or the galaxies themselves drift
through space with varying velocities that would introduce a
marvel of chaos to the otherwise and seemingly ordered and
structured condition of our universe.

Then more confusions. We are told that nothing can exceed light
speed unless it also had infinite mass. Really? In which case does
that explain why photons that have no mass are able to travel at
light speed? And then what does one do with this famous equation
where E = mc^2? If the photon’s mass is zero then zero times any
value greater or smaller than 1 – remains ZERO. Where then is all
this energy that moves at photon at light speed? The truth of the
matter is that science took a wrong turn somewhere and is reluctant
to ‘go back’ so to speak. Somewhere – somehow – the answers
that were given as an explanation for all the forces were also
somehow based on some erroneous foundation – a flaw in its
structure. And I would humbly suggest that this may have
everything to do with the need to speculate on the properties of
forces that remain invisible and particles that can only be studied
by inference.

One of the more intriguing obsessions of our mainstream scientists

is their interest in particle manifestations. The neutrinos are the
smallest and they're also considered to be stable. But these little
numbers could just as easily been seen as a really small photon or a
really small electron - and the electron neutrinos - like the electron
- theoretically also has it's anti particle – its twin. These are the
only stable particles together with the photon, the electron and the
proton. And they’re considered to be infinitely stable which is a
really long time.

But the thing is this. All other particles – whatever their

frequency, their mass, their lack of it, their charge, whatever - they
all last for really small fractions of time. Their duration can be
measured in terms of quadrillionths of a second - or quintillionths -
and so on - getting progressively smaller and progressively more
improbable. Here's the puzzle. For some reason when one slams
one particle into another - inside a bubble chamber - then from the
interaction of two stable particles comes this 'particle zoo'. It's
been described as the creation of a really complex fruit salad from
a chance meeting of two fruits. Those myriad particles that
manifest for such a brief moment of time - simply decay. They
disappear back into the vacuum of space. And the proposal is that
somehow these manifest particles are the product of that
interaction. It's so energetic that it would be absurd to balance out
the energies in terms of thermodynamic laws.

Matter here has multiplied - inexplicably and exponentially.

Strawberries, plums, apricots, pineapples, grapes, quinces, oranges,
apples, and on and on - from the chance interaction of a banana
with a small tomato. So our scientists put paid to that energy
equivalence - that all important sum that dominates science in
every other respect - and they simply look at the conclusion of that
experiment – to what happens after the manifest miracle of so
much coming from so little. And in as much as the final product of
that interaction is less than the manifest particles that decay - then
what is left is precisely the right combination of particles which
then evidence a perfect conservation of charge. One can almost
hear the sigh of relief.

No-one, notwithstanding the evidence of this manifest matter in all

it's varieties and that variety is widely considered to be potentially
infinite - not one of them have suggested that, just perhaps, they
are disturbing some kind of matter in the field that holds these
particles. Why is this not considered? Could it not be that in the
moment of interaction all that becomes manifest may be those
particles in the field that were first invisible - and after impact,
become visible - and then they decay? That way - and only in that
way - would they be able to argue conservation of anything at all.

This is the blind spot, the weak spot - the Achilles heel of our
scientists. There is an evident need or a compulsion to uphold to
one inviolate truth regardless of how well it fits with the evidence.
According to mainstream - energy cannot be created. And
NOTHING can exceed light speed. My own question is this. How
would we be able to measure anything at all that exceeded light
speed? In our visible dimensions light is the limit to our measuring
abilities. It's the gold standard. Actually it’s all we’ve got. We’ve
nothing smaller and nothing faster to compare it against. If
anything moved at faster than the speed of light then light itself
would NEVER be able to find it. It would, effectively be invisible.

Which brings me round to my favourite topic and to another

'inconvenient truth' - to borrow a phrase from Al Gore. Around
about the time when Heisenberg and Bohr were forging the
foundations of Quantum mechanics, Zwicky, a Polish immigrant to
America - saw something that was only enabled by a new found
access to new and improved telescopes. What became evident
were galaxies, in the millions, where prior to this there was nothing
beyond our Milky Way Galaxy. And what was also evident was
that the mass measured in the galaxies, was simply NOT enough to
hold those galaxial structures together. If gravitational principles
were to be universally upheld - then by rights - those great big star
structures should have unravelled or should be unravelling.
Neither was evident. He then superimposed the requirement for
what he called 'missing matter'.

Over time those early results have been systematically ratified and
refined. In effect - many scientists - our leaders in the field of
astrophysics - have proved, conclusively that galaxies themselves
are held bound by what is now referred to as dark mass - from
what is proposed to be dark energy. In effect - they've uncovered
a new - hitherto unknown FORCE. No longer are there four
forces. There appears to be every evidence that there is this fifth
force - and like a fifth column - it's well hidden but pervasive. But
the new and insuperable puzzle is this. It's invisible. Yet it's
everywhere. And we have no reason to doubt this evidence. Our
scientists' ability to measure and observe is unquestionably exact.
But, and yet again - they then make yet another nose dive into yet
another explanation for the inexplicable. All around are frantically
searching for its particle - the 'darkon' equivalent of the
'graviton'. We are back to an Alice in Wonderland world - looking
at an upside down reality - a bizzare universe that must first and
foremost, obey any and every rule that our mainstream scientists
propose - no matter their inherent contradictions.

Why should the particle be visible? Is this still to do with the

obsessive requirement to disallow faster than light speed? Are we
getting ready set, go - to confuse the hell out of another hundred
years or more of theoretical physics - simply to adhere to
relativity concepts? Has the time not come - with respect, where
we can concentrate of 'field' physics and explore the implications
of this - rather than impose a 'field' condition on known particles
that none of them are able to constitute a field. No known stable
particles are able to move together. Electrons and protons are,
effectively, monopoles. Neutrons decay within twenty minutes.
Photons irradiate outwards and can only share a path when their
rays are deflected unnaturally. Nothing known is capable of
sustaining a field condition. So WHY do our learned and revered
insist on imposing a standard particle construct on a field? It is the
quintessential condition of forcing a square peg into a round hole -
of fitting one incorrect fact into another incorrect fact - in another
endless circular argument. Again, with respect, has the time not
come, in fact LONG overdue, to revisit - not so much our answers,
which are increasingly shown to be incorrect - but to revisit our
questions about physics? I personally, think that time would be
well spent in exploring the conditions required for a sustained
field. And I think the evidence now is overwhelming that the field
itself holds matter - and, for obvious reasons, this unhappy, this
uncomfortable, this inconvenient truth - needs to be fully
explored. Just perhaps a whole world exists out there that remains
out of touch of our actual realities. It leads - we follow. It
proceeds in one time frame - and we interact with it in another time
frame. That way - just that one small inclusion into our theoretical
constructs - and we would be able to reconcile so much with what
is evident. I suspect it's our aether energies - and reference to this
has now been long been considered to be politically incorrect.
Perhaps the time is now that this poor, abused concept be revisited
and revitalised by our theoreticians. Certainly we may then
salvage some logical coherence that is entirely exempt in current
thinking.