CHAPTER FOUR - A NEW WAY OF SEEING THE CREATION OF THE COSMOS THE UNIVERSE IS ELECTROMAGNETIC

THIS IS THE MOMENT OF OUR CREATION.

CHAPTER FOUR

A NEW WAY OF SEEING THE CREATION OF THE COSMOS

THE UNIVERSE IS ELECTROMAGNETIC

There is now a whole new science running contrary to the orthodox astronomy and cosmology. It is based on the same astronomical observations, but rejects the Big Bang, black holes, time warps, and most of Einstein`s theorising. Instead it uses sound electrical engineering principles, which can make better sense of a cosmos that is electrical in nature and predominantly composed of highly charged plasma. It is producing stars by the billion and galaxies, large and small and we can observe it doing so.

In this context, our solid neutral planet and its oceans and atmosphere are not typical. Most of the cosmos is stars, and they shine by intense electrical discharges all over their surfaces. They are not globes of hot gas heated from within by nuclear reactions at their centres, they are quite the opposite; they are globes of cool atomic and molecular gas, predominantly hydrogen and helium with thin blazing surfaces.

This alternative view argues that if currents of charged particles are to be attracted to the surfaces of stars, those stars have to exert an electric field to attract them.

Thornhill and Scott argue that the gravity of a star can act on cold still hydrogen gas atoms and polarise them, pulling the more massive protons very slightly off centre from the electron orbitals and allow the protons to ‘see’ each other very slightly. Given that electrostatic force is 39 orders more powerful than gravity, it only needs the slightest polarisation of protons to maintain a force holding them all apart against the concentrating force of gravity.

In this way the stars remain as globes of cool slightly polarised gas below their blazing surfaces and can exert a positive attraction upon the currents that discharge upon their surfaces and ignite them.

The polarisation of gases and materials (even vacuum) between electrically charged plates allows the electrons and protons to exert a slight electrical force. Only the electrical force can do this, Earth`s gravity can produce no appreciable polarisation on anything.

However, a star like the Sun with a diameter of over a million kilometres and a mass of over 300,000 earth masses is able to very slightly polarise gas atoms if they are still and cold. The positive proton at the centre of hydrogen atoms and the positive nucleus at the centre of helium and other atoms can be shifted off centre towards the star`s centre by only a nano amount, but it is enough to allow the electrical charge on all the protons to be slightly uncovered so that they can `see` each other and repel each other with a nano fraction of their full charge. This is enough to hold all the atoms apart against gravity. The whole star remains a globe of cool gas at the density of water, as we measure the Sun to be the protons continue to hold their electrons in their orbitals, for even the Sun`s gravity cannot begin to strip electrons off atoms if only its gravity is at work, that requires high temperature or high frequency radiation.

Though gravity is 39 orders of ten less powerful than charge it can still slightly uncover the positive charge in neutral atoms and allow stars to easily hold themselves against gravity. The forces of Nature work together.

Stars obtain their power to shine from vast interstellar currents that impact on their surfaces and as their electrons and protons combine into hydrogen they clothe them with blazing lightning. Stars shine by electrical power drawn from currents radiating across the galaxy.

The Electric Universe view is: that the continuous billion volt discharges all over a star`s surface can transmute hydrogen and helium, (and any other elements carried in from the galactic atmosphere) into further elements of the periodic table and thus create the kind of material that planets are made of. 68 different elements have been detected in the light emitted from the Sun`s surface. Most of these heavier atoms fall inwards toward the centre within the cool gaseous interior. There it can combine into molecules – the fourth stage of matter creation and build up the matter that planets consist of. In a process we do not yet understand it is collected into a solid planet and then birthed out at the equator and finds its orbit around its parent star.

This new view of stars presents us with an interlocking system of gravity, electro-static forces, electro-magnetic forces and the currents of the galaxy. It all conspires together to form stars, make them shine and produce planets. It is all logical, inevitable, nothing random or chancy about it. That is the cosmos I believe in.

Stars maintain themselves by the interplay of gravity and charge. They don’t need enormous temperatures and pressures to avoid collapse.

Of all the stars the Sun is the one we know the best and it gives us clear evidence that it is a sphere of cool low pressure gas with all the heat and light produced at its surface. For instance:

The sun vibrates in and out over a period of 160 minutes and this is clear evidence it has no dense centre which the nuclear fusion theory must have.

The Sun is a perfect sphere which could not be produced by gravity but only by electrostatic force.

The Sun acts as a positive anode on its vicinity.

Sunspots open the surface of the blazing photosphere and reveal the interior thousands of km below, and it is two thousand degrees cooler than the surface, which is why sunspots appear dark.

I call the cool gaseous interiors of stars – stellarspheres – and they may account for up to 50% of cosmic matter, almost all the rest being ionised plasma.

THE STAR FORMING CURRENTS.

Stars do not form from gas clouds condensing under gravity, which is far too weak and slow a process, and is soon stopped by heating up and centrifugal spin. They are formed instead by electro-magnetic forces moving and directing and concentrating charged particles, not into clouds but into long twisted currents that also carry gas and dust that they have drawn into them from the surrounding space. These star forming currents radiate out from the centre of the galaxy in their millions and connect to every star. The particles within them are all spinning forwards and inwards and because they are long thin strings of matter they do not heat up as the centres of clouds would do. Stars form in chains along the length of these vast interstellar currents, at least the width of the Solar system, that thread the galaxy.

The stars are given their rotation by the current forming them which is spinning forwards. Stars form from cool material because the ionised plasma is all streaming in the same direction enclosed by their magnetic field and so it does not collide and heat up; consequently it does not emit radiation except in long wavelengths.

Because the material forming them is cold it can form stars with cool interiors which are atomic and molecular and remain still, cool and can be polarised. But the influx of electrons and protons impinging on the surface from the current interact as a continuous lightning storm as they combine

into hydrogen and helium atoms.

The Sun, 1.4 million kilometres across, and a Solar System 10 billion km to its outer boundary may seem vast enough, but the electro-magnetic forces that form and power the stars operate on a cosmic scale. Stars being electrically charged, can act as loads on the interstellar currents which draw endless supplies of power and fundamental particles from the plasmoids at the centre of every galaxy and which are drawing them from the universal vacuum.

In the heart of galaxies, matter is formed and the cosmos grows endlessly.

The cosmos has always been there creating itself. This means that there have always been galaxies in uncountable numbers drawing upon the vacuum potential. Their myriad stars are always clothed in lightning and ionised plasma, and the interstellar spaces are threaded thickly with electric currents converging on then. Every galaxy is threaded with vast currents of particles moving towards the stars, supplying them with electric power. Everything that Nature does facilitates this process of creation.

Electrons and protons in these currents do not collide. Being the lightest of all particles and being bare charges, they are accelerated to within millionths of a fraction of the speed of light before mass increase sets a limit. The particles undergo distance reduction along the line of motion which shortens the time of travel and narrowly concentrates their point of destination. For the particles it becomes a short brief highly directed journey from vacuum to load. It all seems different to us resting on the surface of a slow moving planet free of relativistic effects. For us those distances would take millions of years to cross but to the particles perhaps only a few days.

Such relativistic effects give coherence and unity to cosmic processes. What affects particles does not affect the cosmos. It is not time or space that is altered, as Einstein thought, it is the particles relation to the act of extensioning that alters.

Because we on Earth are using that which powers the cosmos, our system of power stations and power lines feeding our cities, which act as loads upon them, is a perfectly valid analogue. Electrons and positrons when drawn out of the vacuum and formed into the structured nucleons that make up the atomic cosmos are then subject to electro-magnetic forces which turn and direct their motions by the Lorentz force.

Concentrating on very general principles as they would occur in space, we can say that a charged particle on entering a magnetic field will be turned at right angles to its line of motion and also at right angles to the magnetic field direction, and as a result will be moved inwards into the field. How it then moves depends on the angle at which it meets the field. The more that angle is in the direction of the field, the more it will spiral along it, its own inertia providing its speed. The magnetic force of the field alters its path, but does not move it forward; that depends on its own inertia and any electric field pulling on it from the distant load. In such a current there are quintillions of particles drawn out of an endless source at near light speed under billions of volts and amperes. Each particle is a moving charge which induces a circular magnetic field around it which at close quarters repels the

magnetic field of other particles. They move close together but do not contact and they do not produce radiation. Consequently these currents flow darkly, coldly and smoothly. We can`t observe them optically but we know they exist by the magnetic fields wrapped around them. They alter light from other sources shining through them towards us by polarising it, and splitting spectral lines.

Currents of moving charges always produce a magnetic field encircling them like a sleeve. It extends all along the length of the current, is wrapped tight around it, and as the current increases the sleeve tightens. As it tightens it constricts the current intensifying it and increasing the magnetic field. This goes on until a balance of forces is reached, as it always is in Nature. The pre-existing magnetic field provides the path; the electric load provides the direction; and the moving particles are the current which produces the magnetic sleeve that encloses and defines the current. By its laws Nature creates a cosmic network of power for its stars.

These currents of space do not remain single and separate but interact and combine because of their extensive electro-magnetism. Long range forces, under the Biot-Savart law, work to draw the currents closer together by their electro-magnetic attraction. Because they are long and thin lines they do not conform to the inverse square law with decrease of power as distance increases, but instead by the simple inverse law. This means that long thin currents in space attract each other more powerfully over longer distances. Treble the distance and the power reduces by only one third, not one ninth. This is because they do not have a single centre of attraction as a cloud or star does. Currents can pull on each other at far greater distances and twine around each other as great ropes of current. As they spiral and approach each other they drag material from space and concentrate it into the centres of their great multiple currents.

Illustration from W Thornhill, ‘Electric Universe.’

As the many currents draw together, the interaction of the individual magnetic fields under the Biot-Savart, Ampere and Lorentz laws causes them to spiral about each other, but as they combine into a spiralling braid they remain close but separate. They exert oppositely directed magnetic fields and this repels and separates at close distance. These vast spiralling matter filled currents form the star forming currents` of inter-stellar space, organised and directed by the laws of Nature to power the galaxies and stars. It is a process that never had a beginning and will never end and is happening everywhere now. The cosmos draws upon the vacuum for unlimited power and particles, and forms a cosmic power grid linking all its stars.

That power system has its source in a nexus of electric and magnetic fields known as a PLASMOID that exists at the centre of every galaxy, sometimes active and radiant, sometimes dormant and hidden. It is in plasmoids that the basic electrons and positrons drawn straight form the vacuum (the first stage of matter creation) are combined into protons and neutrons (the second stage of matter creation) and then form nuclei of hydrogen and helium atoms, (the third stage of matter creation.) These enter the currents that radiate from the plasmoid.

The plasmoid can be visualised as a structure, at least the size of the solar System, composed of electrical currents and magnetic fields.

What we understand about plasmoids is largely due to the observations of the astronomer Halton Arp, who established that quasars originate from the centres of all galaxies and are not at the edges of the cosmos. He worked out, from what he observed, that they moved out from the parent galaxy gaining in mass and reducing in redshift and slowing down and changing into small nascent galaxies clustered about the parent, and gradually developing into companion galaxies in a group.

His discoveries have been ignored and he was barred from using the large telescopes, bur treating him as a heretic doesn’t make it untrue.

A more detailed and well-illustrated account of this subject can be found in

Wal Thornhill, The Electric Universe, Mikamar publishing 2007.

Donald Scott, The Electric Sky, Mikamar 2006.

Halton Arp, Seeing Red, Apeiron 1998.

Also there is the Electric Universe website which provides a beginners guide.

HALTON ARP SAW THE PATTERN.

Halton Arp was one of the greatest astronomers of the 20th century, not just for his skills in operating the complex instruments of a modern observatory and years of experience in studying galaxies of all kinds in both hemispheres, but above all because he was brilliant at seeing patterns.

The night sky may look simple to the naked eye but not when you point powerful telescopes at it. As the magnification increases the field of view shrinks. You are looking at square millimetres of the sky and it is full of faint objects in their thousands all superimposed in two dimensions. It is like a palimpsest, an old manuscript that dozens of different hands have written over one another. The astronomer has to distinguish the foreground from the middle distances and the really remote. We are looking past the myriad stars of our own galaxy to distant galaxies and then trying to sort out objects neighbouring to them from those in the more distant background.

We rely on magnitudes of brightness and the sizes of galaxies. The most useful clue has been redshifts taken to show distances in lightyears. It simplifies the problems so much that it is widely relied on.

In the 1960s and 70s Arp was publishing clear evidence that redshift was not a reliable indicator of distance, particularly for quasars and disturbed and active galaxies. There was a type of redshift caused by the different structure of atoms and the way they radiated light in all quasars and active galaxies and it meant that many galaxies were not at the distances assumed from these redshifts. So quasars were not at the furthest edges of the cosmos but in nearby clusters of galaxies or even in our own local group. This news disturbed many bee hives in academia.

Arp`s extraordinary ability to see patterns in the confusing palimpsest of the star filled sky took him much further on the alternative road that leads us into a far more wonderful cosmos than orthodox science can show us.

He observed and announced numerous examples of quasars of enormous redshifts clearly and closely associated with galaxies of very much lower redshift. In some instances the low redshift galaxy was behind the high redshift quasar.

He was able to discern lines of quasars and nascent galaxies originating along the rotational axes of galaxies or being projected from their equators. It seemed that galaxies were producing new galaxies from within themselves.

Painstakingly he sorted out the relative redshifts, speeds, sizes and galaxy classes and showed that quasars emerge from the centres of active galaxies, with redshifts as high as 4.0, very dim but moving very fast. Further out are quasars with lower redshift, increased brightness and slower speed and looking fuzzy. Further out still these quasars break up to form clusters of very small galaxy like objects, and further out from the parent galaxy there are small companion galaxies. Further out are normal galaxies.

This witch`s brew of heresies was competing with the idea going back to the 18th century philosopher Emanuel Kant, that all stars formed out of tenuous gas at the beginning of creation. They were all isolated bodies with no family connections.

But Arp was showing that galaxies were evolving now and nearby and did not need a Big bang origin and were proliferating everywhere, and were not a fixed stock; and all this implied that the cosmos was infinite and eternal.

I can appreciate why many astronomers and cosmologists can`t accept all this, especially when they have spent long years learning their craft and they have careers and funding and the good opinion of their colleagues to value. But we all have a duty to follow truth wherever she leads.

There was more; the redshifts peculiar to quasars are not a continuum but can be analysed into a series of values that distinguishes intrinsic from Doppler and recessional redshifts. This means that they are indicators of the age of quasars and not their distances. Very high redshift and very dim quasars are always close to some mature galaxy and will be recently formed from it. As they decrease in redshift and increase in brightness and size they are showing their development into mature galaxies.

As the youngest are the dimmest they can only be seen associated with nearby galaxies in our local group. Far from being the most remote quasars they are the nearest. More developed quasars of higher brightness are seen in the great cluster of galaxies in the Virgo constellation of the northern hemisphere, some 65 million light years away. In that vast host of hundreds of thousands, we can find the whole range of galaxy development. In the southern hemisphere there is another vast cluster in the Fornax constellation. Arp studied both.

His findings meant another upset for astronomy and cosmology. If quasars are only visible as far as the Virgo and Fornax clusters, this reduces our view of the cosmos quite drastically. Instead of being beacons of fantastic brilliance near the cosmic horizon 15 billion light years out, they are the progeny of older galaxies within perhaps a hundred million light years of our galaxy. I have no doubt that the cosmos stretches endlessly beyond that, but we cannot see further out with our present instruments.

We can use our most powerful space telescope and fix it on a pinhead of the sky for days on end and the detail emerging from it increases without limit. The palimpsest becomes a welter of near middle and far, of bright and dim, of young and old. It needs great skill to decipher the jumble and discern the patterns of relationship, and computers are nowhere near as good as human beings. Alas, Arp is no longer with us and the major observatories do not continue what Arp was doing.

The cosmos we can map may be no more than a hundred million in radius and we may eventually be able to decipher another hundred million further out, but ultimately we will face a dim blurred fog of superimposed starlight.

There are thousands of groups and clusters of faint small sized high redshift galaxies, catalogued as Abell clusters. They are assumed to be at their redshift distances and billions of lightyears away and they appear to provide a satisfying map of the cosmos. But they do not; they are mostly in the Virgo or Fornax super clusters and all are young still growing companions of older galaxies.

Arp greatly increased our understanding of the nature and development of galaxies, but he has greatly reduced the cosmos we can map.

It is little wonder that he was not popular with the astronomical establishment; he was pulling down the pillars of the temple. From the 1970s onwards he was barred from working in the major observatories, could not get his papers published in the journals or be invited to conferences. When they saw him coming with his photo plates, star charts and diagrams they shut their doors and drew the curtains.

In the late 70s he left America and found support to continue his work in a German observatory.

The sorrow and frustration felt by this brilliant scientist is evident in his book `Seeing Red’, 1998.

It isn’t practical to give the detailed evidence that proved Arp`s argument, the reader should consult his books where abundant photographs of galaxies and quasars clearly related together, and simplified charts of relationships he sorted out from the jumble, much of it from papers he couldn’t get published in the journals.

Just to give a taste of what he had to put up with, I quote from page 105; “The paper titled `The properties of NGC2777, are companion galaxies young? ` took two years and three months to be published in The Astrophysical Journal. The referees started out with comments like: “crackpot theories”, “twisted judgement”, “quite nonsensical”, and “unsupported conjectures”. After five revisions, formal complaints to the editorial board, and detailed editorial intervention to deal with complaints like “too hard to read and “poorly organised”, it was finally published”.

On another occasion trying to make people see the obvious, he wrote: “in view of all the other evidence known to show that quasars and 3C273 in particular belonged to the Virgo cluster, I gloomily came to the ironic conclusion that if you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible education, then you will likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality”.

Fixed ideas and a sclerotic publishing system isn’t the only ailment afflicting science.

There is an extreme specialism where scientists are working within very narrow disciplines that their long and expensive training has equipped them for. Their attention is fixed on narrow areas of research and they live in a restricted world of likeminded people with their own specialist journals and conferences. It is difficult to get cross fertilisation of ideas or a broad view of science.

Many advances come from those who have trained in more than one subject. What science needs is not more specialists and mathematicians but generalists who can read widely and see across the forest and not just a few trees.

.However, revolutionary findings in the 1980s and 90s by electrical engineers and plasma physicists were revealing a cosmos of vast electrical currents feeding energy and particles into stars.

By 1993 Arp had clear observational evidence that clusters of small infant galaxies were emerging and moving out from parent galaxies and that as they moved outwards they grew in size, mass and brightness. But how was this possible if you are assuming, as everyone did, that galaxies and stars are isolated and limited to the fixed stock of energy and matter they formed from? Here were two great areas of research and important discoveries completely out of touch. This explains the following sad little episode that Arp recounts.

“In 1993 I was very excited because this was a staggering change in concept, but one that seemed inescapably required by the observations. But about that time the best scientists I had personally worked with, and valued personal friends, visited the Garching Institutes – Fred Hoyle, Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge and Jayant Narliker. It was nice to have them there because I felt it boosted my unpaid visitor status at the Max Planck Institute. With great zest I laid out before them what I had discovered about galaxy clusters.

They were horrified! Geoff said that the red shift apparent magnitude relation which was accepted for clusters of galaxies, meant that they had to be at their redshift distances. Fred said that my embracing such an obviously crazy result would undermine the credibility of our attack on the Big Bang. He was visibly angry. How could I do this to the person (Hoyle) who had thrilled me beyond expression by coming from the Cal Tech Campus to my office at Santa Barbara Street to see my original observations in the late 1960s?

Perhaps I was hoping for some support and advice on strategy – but it was clear that the people I admired the most thought I was ridiculous. Through my disappointment, I had to admit they were completely right; that the result and everyone remotely connected with it would be ridiculed mercilessly. Struggling with feelings of shame and apprehension at the same time, I felt the results were correct and I had to think of a way to communicate them.”

(This is the result of specialisation dividing science into camps that don’t understand each other.)

If it is widely assumed that galaxies are isolated bodies, how can they keep growing bigger and brighter, where does the extra material come from?

In the end he didn’t approach the journals and most of his findings were published in 1998 in `Seeing Red`.

On page 165 he gives a summary of his results.

1 Objects which appear young are aligned on either side of eruptive objects. This implies ejection of proto-galaxies.

2 The youngest objects appear to have the highest redshifts. This implies that intrinsic redshift decreases as the object ages.

3 As distances from the ejecting central object increases, the quasars increase in brightness and decrease in redshift. This implies that ejected objects evolve as they move outward.

4 At about redshift .3 and about 400 kilo parsecs (about a million and a quarter light years) from the parent galaxy, the quasars appear to become very bright in optical and X ray luminosity. This implies there is transition to BL Lac objects.

5 Few BL Lac objects are observed, implying that this phase is short lived

6 Clusters of galaxies many of which are strong X ray sources tend to appear at comparable distances to the BL Lacs from the parent galaxy. This suggests the clusters may be a result of the breaking up of the BL Lacs.

7 Clusters of galaxies in the redshift range .4 to .2 contain blue active galaxies. It is implied that they continue to evolve to higher luminosity and lower redshift.

8 Abell clusters from .01 to .2 lie along ejection lines from galaxies. Presumably they are the evolved products of the ejections.

The strings of galaxies which are aligned through the brightest nearby spirals have redshifts .01 to .02; presumably they are the last evolutionary stage of the ejected proto-galaxies before they become slightly higher redshift companions of the original ejecting galaxies.

Connecting all these dots of facts together reveals the whole picture. It shows that newly created high redshift material is ejected in opposite directions from active galaxies. The material evolves into high redshift quasars and then into progressively lower redshift objects and finally into normal galaxies.

H Arp, ‘Seeing Red’.

In the 1960s, W Tift and Margaret and Geoff Burbidge had noticed that the redshifts of quasars had a tendency to concentrate at certain values. In 1971 a mathematician K G Karlson using their measurements was able to calculate the hidden factor underlying this periodicity. It is 1.23 and this factor correctly gives the redshift series for quasars as: 3.47, 2.64, 1.96, 1.41, .91, .6, .3, and .01 going from the most redshifted to the least, and also from the faintest to the brightest, and as we now know but didn’t then from the youngest to the more mature.

These values are also given as fractions of c, so 1 is 300,000 km/sec, and .1 is 30,000, and .01 is 3000km/sec but of course they cannot possibly be real speeds.

Below that value they become small but normal looking galaxies with a much lower redshift series which is measured in kilometres per second and follows a different progression based on a different factor. This is because they have lost their intrinsic redshifts and are showing normal Doppler redshifts for real distances.

Tnis numerical series for galaxies is 37.5km/sec, 72.4, 144, 216, and so on for up to 14 multiples of 72.

Concerning Karlson`s insight, Arp comments , “ in my opinion this is one of the great discoveries in cosmic physics” however Karlson could not find a job in astronomy and ended up teaching in a secondary school and then went into medicine.

Many star surveys since then have confirmed this periodicity of quasar and galaxy red shifts to over 95% accuracy but the astronomical establishment has never accepted it.

H Arp, ` seeing red’.

All Abell clusters are extraordinarily sharply peaked at .06. The fainter quasars are mostly at 1.96, Many normal galaxies are found at 144 km/sec.

If clusters of quasars evolve into clusters of small galaxies as BL Lac objects break up, the crucial test would be to see quantisation of galaxy redshifts.

Arp writes: “these peaks are so well established that it has always been a great frustration for me not to be able to use the factor 1.23 for the normal galaxy series 37.5, 72.4 and so on. To apply factor 1.23 to the data for galaxy redshifts does not give their series but a negative redshift.”

“So just out of curiosity I calculated what the power of 1.23 would have to be to give the redshift series 37.5 ….” (this means the exponent you need to apply to 1.23). He found that the value of this exponent had to be 1.230011592 (which he termed ‘a’ for short).

“Because I had been exploring the spin of the electron as a possible basic time unit, I was in a position to notice the extraordinary coincidence of this power ‘a’ with the numbers in the value measured for the (magnetic) moment of the electron - 1.00115965. Considering the difficulty of picking five correct numbers in a row, like a lottery, there seems to be something significant here”

Arp gives details of his calculations in `Seeing Red` page 217. To summarise: when power ‘a’ is divided by 2pi it gives the fine structure constant that determines the line spacing in atomic spectra. (The reason for applying 2pi is because the electron emitting this redshifted light is in a series of orbitals with diameters and circumferences.) He goes on “in other words the magnetic moment of the electron with the nucleus establishes the energy levels of the orbital system around the atom; these levels determine the energy the electron will gain or lose as it alters its place in the atom. Taking into account the interaction of the elementary particle with the surrounding magnetic field, we can say that the increase in quasar redshifts as we consider younger matter seems to come from lower particle masses. In order to make some sense of this I tried to visualise an electron with its spin interacting with the magnetic field of the nucleus of its atom. Depending on its spin orientation, it can assume a series of quantised fine structure energy levels.”

This means an increase in energy when the electron alters its place in a larger structure. It rises or falls over longer distances, therefore its radiation increases in energy and frequency and shifts away from the red end of the spectrum. The quasars that are maturing into nascent galaxies, decrease in redshift, increase in brightness, increase in volume and mass and slow down as they disperse from their parent galaxy.

That redshifts are not continuous has never been accepted by orthodox astronomy but it lands them in more problems if they don’t, because if you insist that they are indicators of distance then the galaxies must exist in sheets concentric around us separated by voids of about 128 mega parsecs. This is too much of a coincidence and contrary to the Copernican principle.

The other consequence crops up when redshifts are used to map the sky.

Take a cluster of galaxies such as Virgo and you will get a highly distorted map. The older large bright spirals with low redshift will be set nearest to us, and beyond and behind them stretches a long tail of fainter smaller higher redshift galaxies assumed to be more remote. (Quasars are not included in these maps because they are believed to be in the far reaches of the cosmos.) What these redshfft based galaxy plots produce are great ‘Fingers of God’ pointing straight at the mapmaker.

H Arp ‘Seeing Red’.

In reality Virgo is a group of older spirals which are the parents to the rest of the cluster which surrounds them as their fainter, smaller more redshifted progeny. The faintest and youngest being the nearest to them and the more mature ones being further out in a roughly spherical gathering, all related. That is what it is after disentangling its true members from the remoter background and our own foreground Stars, but to do that you need the right theory. Only the older parent galaxies show their true distance from us by their recessional redshift caused by cosmic growth. They have lost all their intrinsic redshift. This has to be stripped out of the younger members to obtain their true redshift distances from us and from each other. This is what Arp was able to do and then the Fingers of God disappear.

There are some galaxies older than our own and which show negative redshift relative to the emissions of atoms in our galaxy, so they are blue shifted as we observe them. Our nearest large galaxy is the great spiral Andromeda with a blueshift of 86 km/sec. The orthodox view is that Andromeda and our galaxy are approaching one another drawn by gravitational attraction. The alternative view is that our neighbour is older and probably our parent from which we emerged billions of years ago. There are six other large blueshifted spirals all in the Virgo super cluster, and most if not all of the other galaxies and quasars in Virgo are probably the descendants of those six. Our own Local Group is on the outer edge of that vast cluster. Arp likes to think that the Andromeda is our parent, and we have six grandparents in Virgo.

In the first sentence of ‘Seeing Red’ he writes: “my purpose in publishing this book is to communicate information which would not otherwise be accessible”.

That is also my intention in publishing this collection of ignored, rejected and denounced contributions to the better understanding of this amazing and mysterious Universe.

Arp had great difficulty finding anyone to publish his unwelcome findings. For his first book `Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies` in 1987. He found a small publishing company ready to take a risk; a rara avis these days in the book world.

“Of course I was hoping that once all the facts were correlated and described in a way not allowed by referees, scientists would turn their instruments and analysis to investigating the many crucial objects which contradicted current theory. Instead the book became a list of topics and objects to be avoided at all cost. Most professional astronomers had no intention of reading about things that were contrary to what they knew to be correct. Their interest usually reached only as far as using the library copy to see if their name was in the index.

But before that disappointment really registered with me, something rather wonderful happened. I started getting letters from scientists in small colleges in different disciplines, from amateurs, students and lay people. The amateurs in particular amazed and delighted me, because it quickly became clear that they really looked at my pictures, knew various objects and reasoned for themselves while maintaining a healthy scepticism towards official interpretations.”

“There is now a need to communicate the new observations, the connections between objects, and the new insights into the workings of the Universe – all the primary obligations of academic science which has generally tried to suppress or ignore such dissident information.”

There are now two diametrically opposite views about the nature of redshifts, the formation and evolution of galaxies and what actually powers the cosmos and as Arp says “one side must be completely and catastrophically wrong. The fact that the majority of professionals are intolerant of even opinions which are discordant makes change a necessity. I think if we don’t understand why science is failing to self-correct it will not be possible to fix it. Science never matured through the age of enlightenment. Science always insisted that only those who possessed arcane knowledge were capable of deciding what was true and what was not true in the world of natural phenomena. Now we have a situation where new facts are judged by whether they fit old theories. This then is the crisis for the reasonable members of the profession. With so many alternative contradictory theories, many of them fitting the evidence very badly, abandoning the accepted theory is a frightening step into chaos.”

Indeed it is, I know it well.

I have quoted extensively from Arp`s preface because his wake up call needs to be widely heard.

THE SITUATION IN PARTICLE PHYSICS.

Astronomy is not the only branch of science marching down the wrong road.

The European Union finances an enormous scientific enterprise near Geneva, engaged in discovering fundamental particles, their structures and how they react when beams of them are smashed together with enormous electrical forces. This work engages 10,000 scientists and engineers, uses the power supply of a large city, machines the size of houses and an underground acceleration ring as big as many city subway systems. This activity has been going on for fifty years: what has it achieved?

In 2013, one of the physicists who used to work in this vast enterprise published a book; ‘The Higgs Fake’. Alexander Unzicker`s book is an angry condemnation of the parlous state that high energy physics has deteriorated into over the last eighty years.

He writes: “I shall argue that particle physics as practised since 1930 is a futile enterprise in its entirety. It has been following a dead end. Over the decades high energy physicists have been hunting for ever rarer effects just to declare, as new particles - everything they did not understand. The model has grown to a nonsensical complexity nobody can oversee.

The data produced is too vast to be comprehended and is selectively culled and reduced to make it manageable. The more thoroughly one examines the evidence the more frail it becomes. Only the super specialised understand the small portion of the data analysis. There is plenty of room to suspect that many of its results are instrumental artifacts. What is desperately needed is a new scientific culture of transparency, a world in which results can be tested and repeated step by step by anyone in an unrestricted community of researchers and publically available data; but this is not possible.

Europe cannot afford another CERN, and America refused to have one. Another 10,000 physicists can`t be recruited without denuding other areas of science and the raw data is either not available or is impenetrable. This is science grown too big, too authoritarian, and far too specialised.

The present model, that particle physics uses, is prolific in its complexity.

There are dozens of baryons and mesons, many so short lived they cannot be directly detected. They are believed to be constructed from six different quarks each with three different `colours` and all with antiparticles and held together by gluons of eight different ‘colour combinations’.

The extraordinary success that made physics evolve from pure philosophy was grounded on experiment and observation and falsifiability.

Simplicity in scientific theories is not beauty, it is not condensing into short mathematical formulas; it is just reducing the information.”

“The electron, proton, neutron and positron were discovered over eighty years ago, since then dozens of other particles have been found but they are ephemeral and don’t constitute the matter of our world. I consider that only one important discovery has been made since 1960 out of all the huge colliders and synchrotrons, and that was the evidence for an internal structure of the proton.”

Unzicker considers that the present situation in particle physics is as follows:

“Letting particles collide in accelerators;

Declaring that every outcome that is poorly understood is a new particle;

Filtering out that particle in the next round of experiments as background;

Keep repeating with higher and higher energies.

To extract the signals, technology has to be pushed to the limits, and we can`t be sure what is noise and what is bugs in computers.

In the last decades a cascade of increasingly rare effects that needed collisions with ever more power were forcibly interpreted as new particles, such as the bottom quark, the W and Z bosons and the Higgs boson.

“Consider: the half-life of the W boson and top quark is only 10-25 of a second; that means they cannot travel the radius of a proton before they disintegrate into we know not what, but can only surmise in theory. They will never get out of the maelstrom of the collision point where 600 million protons crash together every second. They will never reach detectors however close, and never cause any physical process that can be identified unless you pile dozens of theoretical assumptions on top of each other. Most particle physicists think they are doing science when really they are just cleaning up after the party.”

Hundreds of millions of collision events per second are all recorded in detectors ranged around the collision point, but only computers can deal with that volume and they are not scientists, and 99% is discarded.

With lifetimes of only10-25 second there is a void between what the detectors register and the collision point. What the detectors detect is actually very basic; - the energy, charge, mass and in some cases a particle track. The hypothetical events in between that fill that gap with a chain of cause and effect is full of other short lived particles that leave no trace. It seems that the higher the energies the more fleeting the discoveries.

It is essential to understand that there is no objective interpretation, no unambiguous reality of an observed experiment, but only an inevitable invasion of theoretical assumptions.

Particle physics has not generated technological advances outside its field. None of the findings of elementary particle physics have been tested outside the academic environment and have no industrial or commercial value.

When the beam of particles hits the target a variety of reactions occurs with their respective possibilities, that can be plotted (this is called a ‘cross section’). Every little bump in the diagrams of cross sections can be interpreted as a particle – ‘something happens there, let`s call it a particle’.

By the 1930s all the major constituents of the atom had been discovered and related together, and with evidence for internal structure of the proton we had all we needed. What do all the many particles and hints of particles with all their wide range of mass charge and decay times add to our knowledge of the atom and of matter? Very little I think; none of these exotic short lived particles form any of the elements”

I have quoted extensively from Alexander Unzicker`s book because he speaks from personal experience and has broken ranks to do so. He shows where Big Science is going wrong. There is an alternative road which the rest of this chapter will reveal.

THE PROGRESSION OF PARTICLES.

In their colliders, beams of particles are smashed together by colossal energies generated by electricity (not nuclear fusion), and directed by magnetism just as happens in the cosmos. From these collisions fragments spray out and their brief tracks are glimpsed, for billionths of a second or even less, in cloud chambers, scintillation detectors, high speed cameras and supercomputers. Here we are observing the emergence of matter from the vacuum, drawn out by the injection of energy. In this respect CERN could be a useful window into what happens in the central plasmoid of galaxies.

The particle colliders smash electrons into positrons, or protons against each other or at antiprotons, and any of them against targets of various elements. But all of these are the stable matter which constitutes our cosmos and that we can handle in experiments.

The dozens of ephemeral particles that shower out of these collisions are not a permanent array of entities like the table of elements are. It is more like a fast falling waterfall of short lived particles decaying down towards the stability of protons, and casting out electrons, positrons, gamma and neutrinos on the way. It is a progression towards permanence and is not chaotic or random.

It seems obvious to me that the ultimate constituents of all compound particles are electrons and positrons. The progression of the particles is towards the only stable and permanent ordering of electrons and positrons and energy, and that is the proton and neutron of the atomic nucleus. Some of the members of this progression have what physicists call Strangeness -- they exist for much longer than the majority of high mass brief particles, and they are the ones that end up as protons.

Particles do not possess qualities as their own but are agents of the universal reconciliation. I liken the progression to a very fast computation where many possibilities are resolved through a series of steps into a final result that builds a cosmos.

TABLES OF PARTICLES ARE PROVIDED.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/lepton.html

To illustrate this I refer to the table of baryons above. Consider the consecutive events that thread through the compound particles. We start at the highest energy level of the Large Hadron Collider, using enough electrical power to light a large town and which is able to drag the most massive particles out of the vacuum into our existence. Their brevity of 10-23 of a second isn’t enough time to enable them to cross the diameter of a proton, but one of them was an exception. This was the Omega Minus which lasted for 10-10 second giving it time to make tracks in the detectors and thereby show how it is affected by electric or magnetic fields and so show us its charge, mass and magnetic moment. The difference between 10-23 and 10-10 may not seem much to us in our slow motion low energy world, but it is the difference between one second and thirty thousand years for a particle. That is `Strangeness; and it means being in a line of progression leading down to the stability of the proton at the end of that progression.

The Omega Minus has a mass of 1672 MeV (million electron volts), for comparison the proton is 983 MeV. It breaks down to the next most massive which is the Chi One Zero at 1351 MeV, also slow at 10-10. A Pion minus is ejected as this occurs, taking the negative charge of the Omega minus away.

Omega Minus has 3 quarks all spinning in the same direction giving an overall spin of 1and1/2. The Chi One zero has 3 quarks, two spinning oppositely and cancelling out, and the other spinning separately giving an overall spin of ½. It rapidly breaks down to a Neutral Lamda, 1115 MeV, spin ½, and a neutral pion of 135 MeV. One route of decay for the Neutral Lamda is to break to a proton and a negative pion, which in 10-16 second radiates away as two gamma photons. The second way is to decay to a neutron and a neutral pion.

The neutron, if outside a nucleus, will last about 10 to 15 minutes and then break to a proton an electron and a neutrino. Again, the end of the line is proton and electron.

Let us take another line of creation. The Sigma Plus, 1189 MeV, lasts 10-10 second, has spin ½, and will break into a proton (keeping the positive charge) and a neutral pion which vanishes as gamma radiation. Alternatively it breaks into a neutron and a positive pion which turns into a positive muon which rapidly breaks to positron and two neutrinos. The neutron, if it doesn’t find shelter in a nucleus, will break to a proton, electron and neutrino.

You can follow dozens of these lines of creation and the progression to stable matter always culminates in protons, electrons, positrons and sometimes neutrons. Every compound particle in these tables, heavier than a proton is ultimately composed of electrons and positrons in a series of brief structurings which morph from Omega to Chi to Sigma to Lamda and always end in protons, while ejecting pions and radiating gamma and neutrinos.

(The pions of 137 MeV with charge, decay to negative or positive muons and then to electrons or positrons which in the melee of the collisions find each other and form positroneum, emit gamma and return to the vacuum).

THE VACUUM IS THE FOUNT OF CREATION

At the most fundamental level of creation, positrons and electrons are drawn out of the vacuum and act as the universal agents of creation. As they actualise into the cosmos from the vacuum, in the plasmoids of the galaxies, they separate and individualise from charge concentrated, spin one bosons into separate fermions of spin ½ exerting positive or negative charge and magnetic moment. As they separate they actualise into spinning rings of charge enclosing an interior space.

A spinning charge produces a magnetic field around it and reacts as a magnet in an external field.

As they have size, the structures they combine to form must have a size and enclose space. Creation creates space continually and causes extensioning.

The structure of fundamental particles is explained more fully in Chapter five, section on magnetic moments.

They manifest what the Universe does; they attract into union and repel into separation. They weave their charge, spin and magnetism into nucleons and nuclei. They act as one ‘choreia’ which can be likened to a dance.

The charged particles and material moving in the space of the cosmos influence the charges of the ep pairs of the vacuum and slightly separates them. This allows the electrical forces of cosmic material to be relayed across the vacuum to other cosmic material distant in space.

One has to distinguish between structured matter in the cosmos; the space that separates it all, and the vacuum which is not space but the contiguity ‘beyond’ it. By ‘beyond’ I mean the contiguity that has no distances, no separation; it is the instantaneous background to the time and space of the cosmos for it is the unity of the Universe.

The vacuum is filled with an infinite, inexhaustible source of electron positron charges, which are charge concentrated to each other and their spins are combined. This leaves the vacuum neutral and unmoving unless stimulated by the cosmos. The cosmos draws power and particles from the vacuum at every point, and stimulates the charges of the vacuum to slightly separate, and that enables charge and magnetic fields to act instantly across cosmic space, and that enables the cosmos to operate as one.

The contiguity of the vacuum beyond space is the inexhaustible source of electrons and positrons. But where do they come from? Ultimately they are agents of the universal event and they are the universal action of unity and separation which advances to e.p pairs and then to separate electrons and positrons in the cosmos as the cosmos draws them out.

The creation of structure is not a once and for all act that creates the structure which then continues to maintain its existence on its own. All are being continuously created and this unceasing emergence into the cosmos gives them mass and inertia.

We experience it as existing and living. No creature can give itself existence it can only experience it happening to it.

PLASMOIDS OF CREATION.

At the centre of every galaxy is a plasmoid either active or dormant, into which the universal vacuum is constantly pouring electrons and positrons. A plasmoid is formed from the combined electric and magnetic fields and currents of a galaxy, and judging from the variations in brightness lasting only hours, they may only be the size of a Solar System. We do not yet understand any details of their structure and workings. This is a subject for a future astrophysics. Plasmoids are the centres of creation for nucleons, nuclei and hydrogen and helium atoms from which stars can form, inexhaustibly supplied from the universal vacuum. Speaking figuratively they are the wombs where galaxies of stars are developed and birthed.

We observe bright radiant quasars emerging from the galactic centres at high speed and showing very high red shifts in their spectra. We see a series of them moving outwards as quasars reducing their redshift, slowing down and increasing in brightness and changing in appearance into small galaxies. In an eternal Universe we can assume that they all eventually grow into full galaxies and then produce new galaxies from their own plasmoids. This creation is occurring all over the Universal cosmos as an immensity of new galaxies appear.

To summarise: there are four kinds of redshift:

1: light emitters moving away from us.

2: emitters under restrained gravitational acceleration.

3: intrinsic redshift emitted from active galactic centres, quasars and newly formed galaxies, by atoms thought to be of lower mass peculiar to those environments where matter is created. As the atoms increase in mas their red Shift reduces to normal values.

4: cosmic redshift shown in the spectra of distant mature galaxies of normal mass and size, the more distant they are the higher their redshift which is due to the expansion of the cosmos as it accommodates to growth. It is a balancing of matter to space. From our viewpoint within our own cosmos we see it as a recession outwards, but for the universal cosmos as a whole it is an internal adjustment, for there is no outside to the Universe. The infinite keeps growing but does not grow any more infinite for it is already infinite. It endlessly maintains the correct ratio of space to matter, and it does this because it is all reconciled tota simul.

The cosmos is in creation, with galaxies, stars planets and life constantly actualising.

But it starts within the plasmoids as electrons and positrons from the vacuum combine into protons and neutrons. In order to form them, hundreds of electron positron pairs combine and exert their charges, spins and magnetism on each other in a ceaseless action which can be likened to a dance – a choreia – which reconciles them all into a compound particle.

Electron positron pairs enter actuality in the plasmoid, acquiring active rest mass, charge and spin but no maelstrom of collisions, and in the tranquillity of the plasmoid of electro-magnetic forces they are brought together, not in collision but to interact in an endless choreia. The galaxy as a whole provides the energy for the dance.

We see the brilliance of the active centres of galaxies and of the quasars being birthed from them. There is an enormous outpouring of continuum radiation from these galactic centres as free charged particles spiral along magnetic fields and radiate away their energy of motion as they do so. They may be entering the currents.

Once the protons and neutrons have been formed in choreia they combine into hydrogen and helium atoms shedding energy as they do so and form the atmosphere of the quasar and of the galaxy it will eventually become.

The single protons and their single electrons enter the currents that are developing in the quasar and from which its stars will form. All this generates radiation as the atoms increase in mass, reduce in redshift and increase in brightness.

I propose that the electrical and magnetic fields of plasmoids are a co-ordinated System that can bring particles together and combine them under their own charge, magnetic moments and spins into nucleons and nuclei.

THE DANCE OF THE PARTICLES.

If we consider an individual proton, there may be, (just for arguments sake) perhaps 918 pairs of electrons and positrons forming a choreia. (The proton is 1836 times the mass of the electron). They are all confined within the proton, except for one positron which acts beyond them all, encircling them with its charge ring fully extended in space and the only one of them which exerts charge, giving the proton one positive charge, and its magnetic moment. I am here using the Helicon theory of electrons and positrons.

All electrons and positrons come in pairs from the vacuum and remain paired and charge condensed within the proton, but the electron paired to the outside positron encircling the proton, is in the system of orbitals outside the proton; and that constitutes an atom of hydrogen. The externally acting positron and its electron partner are an integral part of the whole choreia of the atom. The diameter of the proton is defined by the confining positron ring, and the innermost orbital of its electron partner is 56,000 times further out and defines the diameter of the hydrogen atom. The continuous creation of every compound particle and atom is what extensions the space of the cosmos. The outer positron and its orbital electron are concentrated to each other`s charge so that atoms are usually neutral. Atoms that are neutral can then be moved by gravity and inertia.

Let us now consider a neutron.

Let us say it too is composed of 918 electron positron pairs confined within it and acting in a choreia. A neutron is completely charge neutral to at least 8 decimal places, but it must have a confining charge ring enclosing an internal space because like the proton it too has a magnetic moment. It acts as if it had, in some way, a negative particle hidden within a neutral one for its magnetic moment is negative. The outer confining helicon ring must be a combination of a positron and an electron with the electron dominant and the positron subordinate. This is not a perfectly stable arrangement, for when the neutron is flying free and isolated it will break apart within 15 minutes into a proton an electron and a neutrino. But within plasmoids they form along with protons and are assembled into the nuclei of atoms, principally helium, and then they can be as permanently stable as protons. Protons and neutrons, each one a choreia, together form a nuclear choreia which involves the whole atom with its attendant orbiting electrons.

The problem facing nuclear physics is how can a number of close packed protons, all of positive charge, possibly hold together when there are only completely neutral neutrons accompanying them? There are an equal number of negative charges in the outer orbitals of the atom but they don’t cancel the positive pressure in the nucleus. What are the neutrons actually doing in the nucleus?

To try to solve this explosive problem the Strong Nuclear Force was invented (not discovered) to explain how protons are held together against their enormously powerful repulsion by an even more powerful restraining Nuclear Force.

I propose a different solution:

The helicon ring around the outside of the neutron is positron and electron combined in a dynamic alternation of charge. As a result the neutron alternates very rapidly (possibly at 10-23 of a second) between neutral and a negative charge. In effect it alternates between neutron and ‘negative neutron’. It acts as a negative anti proton would act if it could exist within the nucleus, (but it can`t for they are incompatible with protons, and in any case the mass of nuclei is always protons and neutrons only, so it must be neutrons exerting negative charge. )

Equal numbers of positive protons and ‘negative neutrons’ hold the nucleus together momentarily by charge attraction, but then equal or greater numbers of neutrons momentarily appear between them and allow the positive charges of the protons to keep them apart, in a very fast and precise interaction, - a choreia.

When the neutrons are negative they attract the positive protons, then they become neutral the protons repel; then the neutrons become negative and attract, and then become neutral and the protons repel and so on … In this alternation their repulsion and attraction are held in balance. The neutron can do what the antiproton cannot do; it can switch itself on and off.

It will be objected that the larger atoms have more neutrons than protons. Why this imbalance?

I argue that the positive repulsion of the protons is continuous, but the negative force exerted by the neutrons is an alternation with a time delay. This imbalance of forces is corrected by additional neutrons.

There is no need for a super strong nuclear force (and no one ever knew how it worked). Electric charge is the most powerful force of all and it does everything at all levels of energy from neutrons to neurons.

Why is this so? It is so because it does what the Universe does, uniting and separating. All forces have this in common.

There are precisely as many positrons as electrons in the Universe, but in the cosmos they are almost all hidden inside the compound particles, nuclei and atoms. They are the creative partners of electrons not their enemy. But if they are out in space outside of structures they have no part to play and can only form positronium very briefly and fall back into the vacuum taking an electron with them.

Similarly all ‘negative neutrons’ are hidden in nuclei, while the true antiproton seems to have no part to play in structuring matter. It appears briefly when protons are smashed against protons in our particle colliders. The collision produces a new proton and antiproton pair, but all they do is annihilate and fall back into the vacuum.

PROTONS AND NEUTRONS AND QUARKS.

The strong nuclear force was invented to explain how protons could stay together.

The weak force was invented to explain why protons and neutrons in the nucleus break apart.

The quarks which are part of their internal structure are said to change their nature (termed flavour) and so change protons into neutrons and vice versa. Quarks do indeed exist within compound particles but they are not things that possess a quality called flavour which is supposed to come in various varieties – `up, down, strange, charm, bottom and top`. These quark flavours account for the differences in mass, charge and brevity of existence of the array of compound particles.

I argue that there is no weak force and no quark flavours. I propose an entirely different way of looking at particles and the activity in nuclei. It is based on the concept of the choreia, which in turn is based on a multitude of electrons and positrons interacting together within all compound particles.

There is a well-established progression of compound particles emerging into existence with very high energies, masses and brevities, and then progressively breaking apart and slimming down, shedding great numbers of pions which quickly convert to electrons positrons and radiation. The concept of the choreia provides a common thread. It is vital to bear in mind that particles are actions not things. They are what the Universe does in creating the cosmos.

Particles at the most fundamental level are electrons and positrons with opposite charge, spin and magnetic moment, they have size and extension and are organised in choreia. They are brought together at zero speed in plasmoids in an ordered environment of electric and magnetic fields, they are organised into choreias of integrated action, and these are the protons and neutrons.

The plasmoids are remote from us and their interiors always hidden. We can only surmise what happens within them, but we can surmise that matter on a vast scale is being created, and the vacuum of the cosmos is feeding them. The excess kinetic energy as they form is radiated away with the brilliance equalling thousands of stars.

The high energy facilities at CERN and other laboratories, seek to emulate the work of creation on a tiny earthly scale. It enables us to see what is going on in the plasmoids, using the most powerful electro-magnetic forces we can assemble to collide particles together and see what scatters out of them. Using detectors in large arrays they can observe their tracks and how they react to electric and magnetic fields and how they break apart. The published tables of baryons, mesons and leptons are the result of their expensive labours and are invaluable.

The progression of particles from high to low masses is a progression of choreia towards stability. At the highest energies, the choreia are so brief they never reach the detectors. Only by their break down particles do we know they ever existed.

Even more remote are brief flickerings of energy picked up statistically and known as ‘resonances’; they are at the very horizon of observability and existence.

If one takes the well observed progression from Chi to Sigma to Lambda to proton and neutron, all of which leave tracks and plenty of information, we can see it as a series of choreia all different, all sorting out and settling down into the final stable choreia of the proton. All are composed of different numbers of electrons and positrons in a dancing reconciliation.

I now fall back into bad habits and speak figuratively. The high energy and brief choreia of the Omega and Chi may be likened to a wild fandango of thousands of electrons and positrons which quickly breaks up, whole groups of dancers being thrown out. These are the kaons and pions which exist for only a hundred millionths of a second and break into muons and then electrons or positrons and lots of radiation.

With fewer dancers and less energy the choreia becomes the Sigma and Lambda and resembles an energetic mazurka. Then more dancers and excess energy are thrown out, and finally it all settles down into a slow stately waltz as protons take the floor and dance all night.

What is called ‘strangeness’ is the advance towards proton stability. The higher flavours of charm top and bottom are the excess energy and mass which has to be discarded.

The quarks are not things with flavour, but local groupings within the choreia and they provide the spin of the whole particle. In baryons there are three of these quark groups and if all dance in the same way they give the particle a spin of 1and ½. If two of them dance differently they cancel and the remaining quark gives its spin ½ to the particle. Only the quarks can provide the spin for the whole particle, while the helicon positron provides the magnetic moment for the whole particle.

Quarks do not have charge for they are composed of equal numbers electrons and positrons. The interior of compound particles is charge neutral; it is the single positron or electron on the surface of the particle that gives it its charge, so it is always a unit charge.

The high mass compound particles – Omega, Chi and Sigma, when they break apart shed kaons and pions which briefly exist as separate choreia. They have two quarks, so they are classed as mesons. They either spin together (spin one) or oppositely (spin zero) and they even have single electrons or positrons on their surfaces very briefly giving unit charge to the meson. This implies that kaons and pions are quarks thrown out and implies that high mass particles may have more than three quarks. Quarks outside the compound particle cannot maintain a choreia and always break into electrons positrons and radiation.

Only those particles, whose choreia are enclosed by single external charge rings, are the ones that exert charge to the rest of the cosmos. The hundreds of electrons and positrons within them exert their forces only upon each other to maintain the choreia. Collectively they provide the particles` mass and an internal space enclosed by the outer charge ring which gives magnetic moment. A neutron outside a nucleus changes back into a proton, an electron and neutrino radiation. This shows that its outer helicon charge ring is a combination of positron and electron, and when the electron leaves, the proton is uncovered.

A neutron never expels a positron so as to leave the electron to provide the negative charge for an antiproton. This is never observed. But a neutron within a nucleus can expel an electron and become a proton, the electron taking away the extra mass of the neutron. That electron remains attendant on the proton, either in its orbital system or attendant nearby. It is not possible for protons and electrons to be widely separated. Their all-powerful charge attraction would draw them together again. The cosmos is charge neutral overall, but locally and temporally it operates with forces of attraction and repulsion. Protons always have their elections in attendance whether in structures or in currents.

If an electron rises out of the remotest orbital level from the nucleus they still remain close and under attraction. It is possible that there are no final limits to a protons orbital system if it were in the void of intergalactic space.

A proton outside a nucleus is permanently stable and does not change, but it can change within a nucleus if neutrons are present. The stability of the whole nucleus depends on the ratio of neutrons to protons. In the case of the lightest elements (helium to carbon) it is one to one. For the rest of the elements the number of neutrons is always higher than the protons if the nucleus is to be stable. This ratio rises to 3 neutrons to 2 protons, but beyond Bismuth 209 all combinations of neutrons and protons are unstable and are radioactive, breaking apart and showering particles and radiation. Almost every element below Bismuth has a range of neutron proton ratios, only one or two of which are stable. Too few neutrons or too many, and the structure is radioactive and has a half-life ranging from fractions of a second to thousands of years. These are Isotopes and there are many hundreds of them in the table of elements.

In the unstable nuclei, either a neutron converts to a proton, or a proton converts to a neutron, in order to correct the ratio to a stable one. So a neutron expels its helicon electron therefore adding another proton to then nucleus, the extra positive charge in the nucleus places the electron into an orbital of the atom. Conversely a proton can draw an electron from an orbital and incorporate into its helicon ring and become a neutron.

The textbooks usually tell us that when a proton converts to a neutron it expels a positron and becomes a neutron; but a neutron has a higher mass than a proton, so where does that mass come from?

In fact no positron is ever seen leaving a proton in a nucleus, and its orbital electron in the outer atom is not seen leaving with it to presumably annihilate elsewhere. To explain this, it is argued that the proton undergoes an internal reorganisation where one of its `up` quarks changes to a `down` quark, and that makes it a neutron. It still doesn’t explain where the extra mass comes from.

Neutrons are protons under their different surface dressing and so their quarks are those of the proton and provide the same ½ spin.

I argue that electron capture explains all proton to neutron conversions. The reason a positron is never seen leaving is that it stays with the proton, and its electron partner moves from the outer atom to join it and form a neutral charge ring, electron dominant and positron subordinate. To join it, the orbital electron drops below its ground state and combines with the helicon positron on the protons surface. In effect they form positroneum except that it is a stable union. Their charges alternately cancel as neutral or uncover as negative dominant. In forming this version of positroneum they emit gamma radiation which is mistaken for annihilation outside the nucleus. This means that there is an immense amount of stable positroneum in the cosmos but hidden on neutrons.

The electron leaving its orbital provides a gap that an electron orbiting at a higher level will drop down to fill, radiating gamma as it does.

Every action within nucleons, nuclei and atoms is accomplished by electrons positrons and by nothing else. They are the one and only quanta of electro-magnetism, and the so called strong and weak forces don’t exist.

If the number of electron positron pairs within the proton, increases, it will increase its mass, and also alter the energy levels surrounding the proton and extend them outward. That increases the energy involved when an electron alters in these levels. This explains the increase in mass, decrease in redshift and increase in brightness and slowing of motion in the nucleons and atoms of quasars.

The charge attraction and repulsion of the internal ep pairs increases with their number but it only affects their choreia. To the outside world they are all charge condensed, and only the surface helicon positron exerts the single positive charge and can interact openly with the electron in the orbitals, or with charged particles outside them if the atom is ionised.

The energy structure that the electron must move in is set by the ch0reia of the internal ep pairs in the nucleus acting collectively to set the orbital structure for the electrons to dance in. This is the simple picture for the hydrogen atom but it applies to atoms with many protons and neutrons in larger nuclei with many orbital electrons. It is not open attraction and repulsion but a balance of both in an unceasing choreia.

This provides a ‘balanced `charge surface` for electronic interaction between the atoms of the elements. This provides a stable ‘surface` for chemistry, analogous to the balance of electro static forces with gravity in a star providing a surface for the transmuting the elements. It is also analogous to the balancing of gravity and atomic and molecular cohesion that provides a planetary surface for life.

The electron in the orbitals moves within the energy levels and quantum mechanical rules set by the whole choreia. The internal ep pairs do not attract and repel the orbital electron openly; they provide the choreia it moves in.

THE NEUTRINO.

The neutrino was first proposed in 1930 by W. Pauli because of a discrepancy in the energy radiated away by nuclear reactions. When a nucleus spat out an electron, that electron would sometimes include all of the energy involved in the reaction, but usually there was a varying amount of energy unaccounted for besides the electron`s energy of motion.

What was happening to that energy? It couldn’t just disappear; energy always has to be doing some sort of work somewhere for it is creation.

There was another anomaly as well. As the electron left the nucleus, the nucleus recoiled but not exactly opposite to the expelled electron`s forward momentum. It seemed to be recoiling in the direction of something else but despite intensive searches no other particle could be detected. Pauli proposed a charge neutral massless particle which was carrying away the surplus energy in a different direction. His colleague E Fermi called it the neutrino to distinguish it from the neutron which was charge neutral but had mass slightly greater than a proton.

However, a massless particle is not really a particle at all and we need a different explanation.

The nucleus can`t recoil from something massless; it is recoiling from another nucleus interacting with it directly somewhere in the contiguity. This means the neutrino is like the photon, a carrier that appears to us to bridge the gap between emitter and receiver in a cosmos simultaneously closed up and spread out.

Since the neutrino`s invention, a whole branch of particle physics has developed around this elusive invisible `particle` and it is now the orthodoxy. It is definitely chargeless and not just charge neutralised, and cannot respond to electrical and magnetic forces. It does not interact with atoms to cause light as electrons do. The only evidence for its existence is the alterations that occur in protons and neutrons, that it is held responsible for. It seems able to change protons into neutrons, and neutrons into protons and therefore change one element into another. To do this it carries varying amounts of energy within the strict limits of nuclear reactions.

We have to go to extraordinary lengths to detect any of them. How do you detect a single neutron in an atom somewhere altering to a proton when you have no advance notice and no tangible agent arriving to do it?

The neutrino remained a theoretical proposal to balance the books until 1956 when Cowan and Reines using a huge tank of water next to a nuclear fission reactor were able to detect neutrons forming from protons in the water and producing deuterium.

Since then gigantic facilities have been built to catch neutrinos at work. There is an enormous tank with thousands of gallons of Carbon tetra chloride down in a deep gold mine in South Dakota to insulate it from cosmic particles and surface radiation. Very occasionally, a few times a day, a neutron in a chlorine atom is altered to a proton, which increases the number of protons from 17 to 18 and promotes chlorine to argon, and those traces of argon gas can be detected.

There is a vast pool of pure water in Japan called Kamiokande, and a vast pool of heavy water in Sudbury Canada. The agent of these changes is certainly not the light that illuminates our world.

Most of the neutrinos are believed to come from the Sun, arriving by day and night for they can penetrate the whole body of the Earth just as easily as its atmosphere. On the Sun`s surface proton-proton collisions produce neutrons and neutrinos. The orthodox view is that a thermo-nuclear reaction rages at the centre of the Sun. The alternative Electric Universe view, which I follow, is that protons convert to neutrons in high energy electrical discharges on the surface, radiating ultra violet visible and infra-red radiation and neutrinos. In both versions the newly formed neutrons combine with protons to form deuterium and helium.

There has always been a debate as to whether the neutrino is massless like a photon of light, or perhaps has a very tiny mass which would make it a particle with all the privileges of being a fermion with ½ spin, a speed of less than c, the status of a lepton and being either an electron, muon or tauon neutrino, and having antineutrinos.

Long and exhaustive experiments have not yet established decisively that it is massless but it can`t be more than 1/3 of an electron volt. In comparison the electron, the lightest of all particles is 511 thousand e.v.

Is it a particle that can cross space as an electron does or is it like a photon and is only an interaction of nucleon to nucleon in the contiguity? The widely held orthodox view is that it does have some mass, is a particle, a fermion, a lepton with flavours, and has an antiparticle and doesn’t travel at c, but may be very close to it.

However, there has been a parallel line of enquiry concerning its speed. Is it the speed of light or is it less? The findings are conclusive; it is the speed of light.

In the 1980s a very elaborate experiment used pulsed pion beams produced by pulsed proton beams hitting a target. The pions rapidly decayed in millionths of a second emitting neutrinos which then altered nucleons in a detector at a measured distance away. The pulsing was to give brief intervals that the detectors could measure. The results were consistent with the speed of light.

The experiment was repeated with more sensitive detectors in 2007 and again in 2012, they too found the speed was c within miniscule limits of error.

Yet the most decisive proof was in 1987 when a large hot blue star in the Magellanic satellite galaxy of our own, suddenly detonated as a supernova with the brilliance of thousands of suns and was visible here 160,000 light years away. But before it was seen by astronomers neutrinos were detected at three neutrino observatories. In a period of 13 seconds 24 neutrino events were recorded.

The light from the supernova would have reached us at the same time, for no one accepts that anything, including neutrinos, can travel faster than light. But it was only visible in the southern hemisphere after night fell and someone happened to be observing the Magellanic clouds and recognised that a new star had appeared and knew how to alert the major observatories. This meant a delay of several hours.

In June 2012 CERN announced that new measurements by experimental teams: Opera, Icarus, Boroxino and LVD were in agreement that the speed of neutrinos and the speed of light were the same.

I consider all this is conclusive, and a chain of consequences then follows:

To move at c it has to be massless like a photon. If massless it cannot be a lepton or fermion, and it can`t have an antiparticle. We don’t have to bother about left and right hand helicity. It doesn’t oscillate between lepton flavours and so there are no electron, muon and tauon neutrinos. As it is massless it is not a particle like the electron and positron, and it is chargeless so it has no part to play in the attracting and repelling, the uniting and separating that real particles do. Like photons they are just transactions in the contiguity, but which seem to us to be energy crossing distance. We only see one half of these transactions as extensioning sunders them apart.

Electron-electron interactions involving light are in the contiguity, and there the electrons must be spinning oppositely as thy momentarily interact, as their superposed wave functions momentarily coincide. Theoreticians have projected this opposite spinning onto the theoretical neutrino and its antineutrino. So neutrinos are said to screw leftwards as they move forward, and anti-neutrinos screw rightwards. In reality it is the opposite spin of two distant protons interacting in the contiguity.

We could say that neutrinos, like photons, would be spin one bosons if they existed.

Because we know that an effect here must have a cause somewhere else, and because we know that that cause could be from the Sun, or a nuclear reactor, or a supernova, we assume that the cause is carried to the effect by a mediating agent, which has all the characteristics of a photon but which we call a neutrino. For dogmatic reasons it is considered to be a real particle. This is the pernicious influence of Heisenberg`s Principle again. It is assumed as a fact that electrons and positrons cannot exist within the nucleus because of their excessive momentum, as if they had to fall into the nucleus from outside. Therefore if electrons are observed to be flying out of nuclei, they must be created on the spot from energy involved in the reactions, and that applies to positrons and neutrinos too. But if you accept that nucleons, and all baryons and mesons, are made up of paired electrons and positrons in a coherent interaction, then what is seen leaving nuclei comes from them, and creation de novo is irrelevant as well as flouting conservation laws.

Suppose a proton on the Sun coincides briefly with a proton in the nucleus of a potassium atom on Earth (which we assume to be the result of a neutrino connecting them.) This alters the internal choreia of the earthly proton to that of a neutron, so an electron leaves to join the helicon positron of the proton to become a pair; electron dominant, positron subordinate and the proton becomes a neutron. The electron transfers within the atomic system, nothing crosses space. It is a momentary meeting in the contiguity as wave functions coincide. The potassium atom loses one of its 19 protons and reduces to the 18 protons of argon.

As we must see it, there is a ‘Visible Cosmos’ of light as electrons interact with electrons in the rhodopsin molecules in our retinas directly in the contiguity, but we assume it is light shining across space.

There is a ‘Hidden Cosmos’ of neutrinos as nucleons interact in the nuclei of atoms. We have no senses to see it.

There is an ‘Apparent Cosmos’ that we experience due to our standpoint and viewpoint. We see a material cosmos spread out, and we surmise that causes and effects are joined together by photons, neutrinos, gravitons, weak force Bosons, and strong force gluons.

The deep reality is that interactions of the contiguity are projected onto the cosmos by the extensioning of space.

As it all occurs in the contiguity, it is all instantaneous but is extensioned at speed c across distance. That is the apparent cosmos.

I believe that the cosmos is bathed in nuclear radiation as it is in light, but we can`t see it. So we assume that neutrinos don’t interact with matter as continually as light does. Yet they are emitted profusely from all particle breakdowns, and isotope alterations. We have opened up the formerly dark world of X rays and gamma and even cosmic particles, but neutrinos are still hidden from us and we must go to extra-ordinary lengths to detect any of them.

It is often stated in the text books that a neutrino could pass through several light years of solid lead before being stopped. It is a wild exaggeration. Because neutrinos from the Sun are only occasionally detected at our half dozen observatories, it does not mean they pass through the Earth without interacting at all.

There is a great deal of radio-activity in the Earth which generates a lot of internal heat. This is the result of nuclear neutrino radiation bathing the Earth.

An event 160,000 light years from here altered protons in three neutrino detectors which are no more than a hectare in area. Now consider the total area of the Earth and how many atoms would have been affected, and not just on the surface but everywhere within our planet. Then consider all the other planets and the Sun, and all the stars of our galaxy and neighbouring ones; how many neutrino hits is that?

What it shows is not the unreactive nature of neutrinos but the profound unity of the contiguity of the cosmos which this supernova discloses to us now that we have neutrino detectors.

The deep reality behind these 24 neutrino hits is that we know they were momentarily in contiguous contact with nucleons in the exploding star, but so were atoms in our bodies at that moment if only we could have felt them alter.

The much exaggerated unreactivity of neutrinos rests on the fact that nucleon-nucleon reactions are one to one in the contiguity of nuclei; but this is a closed world to us, for our eventa comes from electrons exchanging energy with other electrons n the outer orbitals of our own atoms. There are no multitudes of neutrinos milling about the cosmos never finding a receiver. Every nucleon finds its mate just as every electron finds a receiver; it is always very busy in the contiguity.

SUMMARY OF THE COSMIC PROCESS.

The electrons and positrons drawn directly from the vacuum in inexhaustible numbers enter the plasmoids at the centres of the galaxies and are assembled into protons and neutrons. All the positrons remain within them and only the electrons can exist outside in the atomic orbitals, or out in free space. After passing out from the plasmoid they provide the matter within a galaxy. It is structured matter, as distinct from the bare electrons and positrons entering the plasmoid which is primary matter. The vacuum from which primary matter is drawn is potential matter with charge, spin, magnetism and mass dormant until stimulated by the cosmos which is constantly drawing on it.

Primary matter enters the plasmoids and quasars, and from the way the quasars and nascent galaxies move, grow and radiate it seems that they begin with very low mass, which enables them to move fast under the forces expelling them. They have extremely high redshifts which can`t be due to recession velocities away from us, nor cosmic expansion, but must have a cause internal to them. They have intrinsic redshift which orthodox astronomy will not recognise, and insists on placing all quasars at the edge of our cosmos and at the very beginnings of the Universe. The alternative science of plasma and electric cosmology teaches that all galaxies can produce quasars from their centres and there is widespread evidence for this. Their redshifts are caused by the way they are being formed, and the extraordinary amounts of radiation pouring out of them, is continuum radiation as protons and electrons whirl along magnetic fields and lose kinetic energy.

Atoms are forming there and they produce spectral line radiation that shows the very high redshift. That means that the electrons of those atoms are dropping down energy levels that are less than those of earthly atoms and are emitting radiation of less energy; reduced to the red end of the spectrum. This must mean low mass atoms and low mass nucleons in their nuclei but the mass of electrons positrons does not change.

I argue that the protons and neutrons are built in those centres of creation in a series of steps or choreia, increasing in mass. I surmise that the nucleons form in a series of combinations of electron positron pairs. Let us say, for argument`s sake that 200 pairs assemble in a choreia with an enclosing charge ring. This very low mass proton with its attendant atomic electron radiates at low energy when it alters orbital and therefore at high redshift. Then the choreia increases to say 400 pairs and then 6oo and so on. At some stage it reorganises into quark groupings within the choreia. As the quasars evolve into nascent galaxies the step by step increase in the mass of their nucleons, and therefore the mass of the quasars, slows down the speed of their expulsion out of the plasmoid.

The redshift reduces and their brightness increases. This would explain why intrinsic redshifts of quasars are in steps and not a continuum as would be the case for recession velocities. It reveals the building up of nucleons towards the protons and neutrons of our own world.

CERN cannot build up electrons and positrons into protons and neutrons, for it is a high energy environment using earthly matter. It can only take earthly compound particles and break them down to see how they are constituted. It gives us a wonderful window into the structures of matter, but whether it can simulate the conditions of a plasmoid using primary matter remains to be seen.

The space within the galaxies is threaded with currents of particles and nuclei, and the stars act as loads that draw on them. All this material created in the galactic centre supplies the stars principally with hydrogen and helium that builds up their stellarspheres. The electrons and protons of the current fall on their lightning clothed surfaces and are transmuted by high energy electrical discharges to higher elements. Some of this is ejected back into space, enriching the `atmosphere` of the galaxy with gas and dust. This atmosphere is exceedingly tenuous, but so vast is the space between the stars that overall it contains millions of stellar masses, and this atmosphere is constantly being replenished as it is being consumed.

Star forming currents of protons and electrons are the power supply for the stars. The magnetic fields wrapped around the currents draw them towards each other and cause them to spiral around one another and draw closer in ever tightening braided currents. As they do so they attract and drag the gas and dust of space along with them.

Each current feeds many stars along its length all drawing on the plasmoid. Every star receives the power it requires to maintain its lightning clothed surface. Along their length out in interstellar space the currents confined by their magnetic forces can constrict their width into tight pinches that can collapse into new formed stars, bringing their material in with them. It is well known observation that stars are associated in long chains; these show the passage of the dark non radiating currents they formed from.

It is on the blazing surfaces of stars that the matter from the plasmoid is transmuted into higher elements by electrical discharge. Here on Earth CERN uses electrical power to transmute elements, and it is precisely what is happening all the time on the surface of the Sun.

The interstellar currents, at least a third of a light year wide and hundreds of light years long, that power and supply the stars, move their contents at near light speed, and so for the particles in them, the galaxy is a small place and can operate as a single coherent system.

The current density delivered to them is determined by the star`s mass. So a low mass star has a lower current density and shines less brightly and at lower energy than a high mass star which can draw in more current and shine more powerfully.

Very hot bright stars, class O or B, are under stress from very high current. This can cause the star to fission into two or more smaller stars in order to redistribute the current over a larger set of surfaces. This is why some stars flare into nova or super nova outbursts during this redistribution of mass. The majority of stars are in pairs or three or more, and this shows how the galactic electrical supply system is balancing with the stellar masses.

On a lesser scale, a star overloaded by current may fission off Jupiter sized gas giant planets. We now know they are a common feature of all the nearby stars we can observe.

Stars which eventually settle into stability continue to produce heavier elements on their surfaces and much of it falls in towards the stars centre. The interior is gaseous, cool and slightly polarised. There is no dense nuclear reactor at the centre. It is surmised that the heavy material falls to the centre and forms a nascent solid planet. Eventually due to forces and an environment we do not yet understand, it is birthed out of the star at its equator and finds a place orbiting it. In this way was the Earth generated from its parent star.

Quasars are birthed out of plasmoids and develop into galaxies; stars are condensed out of currents; planets are birthed out of stars; and on the surfaces of solid planets biospheres may form if the circumstances are right, and then life appears.

EXTENSION AND EXPANSION.

Every standpoint in the extended cosmos, whether receiving or emitting is at the centre of its own cosmos and eventum, and all other standpoints in all directions away from it are at distances set by the extensioning of the cosmos. That establishes the particular cosmography of each standpoint.

The contiguity of the vacuum reflects this, not by distances, but by relevance. The contiguity reflects in diminishing relevance what the cosmos presents by increasing distance.

In an infinite Universe the inverse square law alone will not protect the finite. But this is not a static Universe; we know that the cosmos is ceaselessly growing and its space is increasing. We have to distinguish between the establishment of space, as creation continually maintains existing structures, and the expansion of space as entirely new matter appears in the cosmos. Creation has two different aspects: it continually maintains what it creates, and it creates new, and both activities produce space and maintain the balance of matter and space. It is expansion of space that causes redshift and reduction of energy. Extensioning (due to maintenance) does not do that; it just reduces the number of photons received as distance increases. Expansion does increase the spatial extent of our cosmos, and distant galaxies are actually moving outwards from us. However this does not expand space within galaxies, for the local forces of electro -magnetism and gravity easily hold the stars together; the adjustment is occurring cosmically over intergalactic distances where local forces are weak.

As the universal cosmos grows, so any individual cosmos of a receiver expands without limit and redshift increases without limit until the light has no energy left to alter a receiving atom.

What causes the redshift reduction in energy?

All motions in the cosmos are reflected in the contiguity as the direct interactions occur. Relationships in the contiguity alter with the movement of atoms in the cosmos. The exchange of energy occurs in the contiguity between contiguous atoms even though we have to see it as distant separated atoms united by light moving between them. Describing it as if it were movements in the cosmos is obviously easier. So I can explain redshift in the contiguity as the falling electron in the emitting atom and the rising electron in the receiving atom altering relationship as the cosmos grows and therefore they do not fully coincide so that their full energies cannot be exchanged. At the limit of the cosmic redshift the two receding atoms do not coincide at all and their electrons cannot exchange energy. That defines the horizon for every standpoint in the cosmos and the sphere of relevance for every interactor in the contiguity.

Creation is open ended, what it creates makes further creation possible; it is a self-creating Universe increasing in complexity. With each step in the creative process more complex structures can be formed. There is no randomness, chance or indeterminacy, but we do not fully understand the logic and can never hope to comprehend the universal reconciliation. The Universe is perfect and all its possibilities are from within it.

For instance: the atoms of the 90 stable elements can interact with the other elements to form molecules and these can interact with other molecules in a vast progression of chemical compounds, but always directed by the logic of the universal reconciliation - the terminus of all actions that defines what can be actualised and what can not.

THE EMPTINESS OF THE COSMOS.

It always seemed strange to me that the Universe has so much emptiness and so little solid matter. The stars are like specks of dust compared to the space between them. The ratio of space to matter is estimated to be 1027 to one. It has always been a perennial problem in philosophy and cosmology.

If space is emptiness, total nothingness, argued Parmenides 24 centuries ago, how can it exist and separate the world if it is nothing? If space is nothingness then the solid things that do exist must be together, for there is nothing to separate them.

However, separation is a fact and the universe is a multitude in space. Other philosophers, like Democritus, accepted space as inexplicable but definitely there, and full of atoms moving, interacting and coalescing in the void. That is still the basic view of science today, and the common sense view we all take for granted. But Parmenides problem has always been in the background bothering philosophers.

During the 19th century a semi physical aether was thought to fill space and carry the forces, but trying to marry the semi material to the emptiness led to a collision of contradictions.

Nowadays we have fields of force extending universally from every particle which are relied on to bridge the emptiness and keep everything in touch but no one knows what fields really are.

Since the 1920s we have known that space (or the vacuum as it is now called) is not an emptiness at all, but seething with the submerged activity of limitless numbers of elementary particles that emerge from the vacuum for mere trillionths of a second and submerge again. Potentially there is an infinite energy in the vacuum yet it remains inaccessible to us.

An answer is provided by the electric universe cosmology. All space is filled with an exceedingly tenuous scattering of particles and nuclei forming an ionised plasma. Now you might argue that if it is as tenuous as that, what is to stop everything closing up almost as closely as if space was completely empty, and we are back with Parmenides again. But a deeper understanding of plasma and how it behaves has resolved Parmenides` dilemma and provided an alternative to the old impossible aether.

Plasma is not a bit like gas; it is the arena for electrical and magnetic forces enormously stronger than gravity that can both attract and repel, unite and separate. Space is not inert but continually active. It cannot possibly collapse for it is the activity of creation and this extensions it into separation, multitude and sequence, as the cosmos is created around us. When we speak of every particle having a field of force extending indefinitely around it we are really referring to the Act of Extensioning of the whole cosmos, but attributing it to each particle reaching out.

Creation needs the volume of space. The whole electro-magnetic economy of the cosmos depends on vast spaces, tenuous plasma and vast hosts of stars and currents generating mighty forces. The logic of creation keeps it in perpetual balance and perfect efficiency.

That space is dynamic, active and creative answers Zeno`s ancient paradoxes. Zeno assumed that space was inert and static and could be chopped up endlessly. But you can`t chop up a flowing river into endless bits which stay still while you chop up some more. As a river flows, so space extensions endlessly. The same applies to time, which Zeno thought could be divided without limit while the world stood still. Time is the continuous unstoppable flow of events in our lives received from the ceaseless continuous universal event.

As we must see it from our standpoint within the cosmos, there is a cosmos already created which is our past and unalterable, and there is a cosmos not yet created for us, which is our future being created as we move forward in our time. As co-creators we can freely fashion our lives within the affairs of the world. As we do so the future endlessly unfolds in front of us because the Universe is creating itself from itself.

So the Universe draws from itself, and we see that as creation and endless growth. It is a generative infinity in which what is created enables further creation. The Universe is not static, not limited, and as we see it in time, it grows without ceasing.

Possibilities are the seeds of our actions, and we know of nothing beyond them except the events of the world. We do not draw possibilities from nothing. If it seems as if we do it is because our future is the cosmos not yet actualised for us at our standpoint. In reality the Universe is all there is; an oroboros creating itself from itself.

NOTHINGNESS AND THE UNLIMITED.

Why is there the Universe rather than nothing?

As Parmenides might have argued, it is obvious that existence exists, the world exists and we know we exist. Nothingness does not exist, it is not there, there can only be existence, but why this is so is quite impossible to explain. What can be its limits if there is nothing beyond it? It cannot have emerged from nothing, and it cannot submerge into what does not exist. What exists is not bounded by nothingness as if it were an island surrounded by a sea. Existence must be without beginning or end or boundaries. It must be infinite and eternal for it is all there is and there is nothing to limit it.

To think of Infinity as only extent and eternity as only duration can lead to the visualisation of an endless progression into endless space or time.

We can symbolise this with the progression of numbers, positive and negative stretching away in both negative and positive directions without end. This is the many without limits. But we know the numbers behave as One as well as many, they are unity of mathematical laws acting as One.

The reality is deeper than that. We have to think of all numbers (integers, fractions, irrationals and complex) all immediately present to one another as a superimposed interacting unity. A true unity all interacting together as an instantaneity like an organism is.

The totality of numbers is probably our best working analogy to the cosmos. One of the greatest contributions that mathematics has made to our understanding of the cosmos is the concept of wave functions representing the many all superimposed as actions (not things) all directly present to each other beyond the restrictions of separateness.

In the flow of events we experience as time we see the universal computation occurring, in for instance, the quantum realm of fundamental particles. There we can see the range of possible particle actions is rapidly actualised to one outcome and the other possibilities instantly disappear. The superfast progression of massive particles to protons is an example.

That is the Universe acting to create the cosmos at the deepest level. We see it event by event because we are within the cosmos being created. This for us is the moment of all creation and of our own creation.

What happens to all the quantum possibilities that do not actualise? This question has been a subject of debate in quantum physics for years. Professor Paul Everett speculated that all the possibilities not actualised in any one particle event had to exist in an alternative universe, and that every possibility not actualised in our Universe would exist in another one and in each universe so appearing every unactualised possibility would exist in an alternative universe to that and so on ad infinitum.

There can be no end to this proliferation and no limits at all. Universes breed faster than bacteria and the more there are the more there will be. This is a limitless phantasmagoria of universes, and it has no overall unity or purpose or coherence.

The assumption behind this speculation is that there is no purpose or rationality to the actualising of quantum events. It is all by chance and one outcome is of equal existential value to any other.

That is the problem of the unlimited, the many in a population explosion outside the One. This is what the Greeks called the Apeiron - the Limitless – the wilderness beyond the cosmos.

I argue that the unrestrained infinity of the Apeiron is avoided because the universe is a rational purposive coherent unity creating a cosmos of order. It is the Universe that does the ordering and that is totally beyond our ability to predict.

Seen in a wider context it is all wave functions present to one another as One.

This instant and total reconciliation applies to the physical cosmos and establishes its natural law.

Our future may seem empty and mysterious to us, but it is the cosmos already there but we are not yet living in it. From this range of possibilities we choose our actions, actualising some and not others. Those we do not actualise have no existence. We may like to imagine them existing as we daydream about what might have been, but they are only in our mind not in reality. We cannot make real what we did not actualise.

The vague realm of ‘what might have been, if only’ - is only in our minds not in reality.

THE FREEDOM OF LIFE

All living organisms, however lowly, have a freedom to act. They can choose from the possibilities they encounter in order to hunt and flee and feed and mate. They are not automata.

The great Spanish biologist, Cajal, recounts how he watched an amoeba, the simplest of one celled organisms hunt for food. It encountered another smaller organism and pursued it. The chase went on for hours. Cajal watched amazed and fascinated as this simple creature went on hunting its prey. He stayed at his microscope all night waiting for the outcome of this epic chase. Of course we can`t humanise an amoeba, but driven by the powers the Universe had given, it showed cunning and perseverance at its own level, which is the hall mark of life.

All life has to hunt and kill and devour, whether they be carnivores, omnivores or herbivores, for the surface of a planet and its biosphere is limited and its resources have to be recycled, so everything has to eat something else. As we ascend the levels of life its faculties and powers increase in sentience, intelligence and range of activity culminating in the human mind and will.

In all this activity there is a freedom, whether it be a shark catching this or that fish, or a frog catching this or that fly, or a lion catching this or that zebra, there is always a choosing of possibilities confronting them at that moment.

The creative power of the Universe is delegated to the living creatures in an ascending order of capabilities.

If the physical cosmos is perfection of laws, the living world of a biosphere is tumultuous and bloody. In any grassy flower filled meadow there will be beneath your feet a battlefield of insects and worms and moles and shrews that never ends. I vividly remember seeing a nature program years ago on the BBC, one of David Attenborough`s I think, where a stick insect was on a branch hungrily eying some small insect, but before it could pounce, a chameleon which had been watching it closely from behind with its swivelling eyes shot out its tongue and swallowed it. As it was enjoying its snack a tree snake had been slithering along the branch opened its jaws and swallowed the chameleon whole. Then, believe it or not, a passing hawk swooped down seized the snake and flew off with it to its nest. It must have been an interesting meal for its chicks.

It’s a rough old world.

From this tumult of procreation and feeding a biosphere is fashioned under the creative drive that the Universe has delegated to its creatures. The biosphere fashioned by all, provides for all and has transformed the oceans atmosphere and land surface of our planet to enable life to flourish.

Living organisms possess all the evolution that culminates in their inherited genes and all the genetic activity that produced them. In their genes they have the present culmination of the history of their species. All of the living generation of each species and all its ancient multitude of past generations is one in their genome. As each individual dies its flesh and bones returns to the earth,, but its instantaneity which united its physical body returns to the immortal oneness of spirit of its species. All the past of the species is consolidated into it. The consolidated unity of all species constitutes the biosphere.

To define some terms:

All living creatures are instantaneities, animals are sentient instantaneities, the higher animals are intelligent instantaneities, and humans are conscious instantaneities and all are Spirits because they are unities that possess themselves.

As human spirits we mirror the Universe in that we are instantaneities bent back upon ourselves as an oroboros, uniting with our self as one interacting whole. We are not just aware of the world, we are aware that we are being aware; that we know we are acting and watch ourselves acting. This intensifies our autonomy, individuality and unfortunately our self centredness.

Our spirits, as with all instantaneities are immortal, and human spirits after our physical death enter our species which is Humanity - a union of all our spirits. Then our errors and sins must be repudiated so that we can grow up into mature spirits that are fit to enter union into Humanity.

COSMIC SURFACES

As we stand on the surface of this planet we ae continuously accelerated towards the centre of the Earth by its gravitation but that acceleration is restrained by the cohesion of the atoms and molecules of the physical surface. We experience this restrained acceleration as weight, and on other planets we would experience different weight depending on the gravity at the surface of each world.

Stars also have ‘surfaces’ defined by their electro statically balanced interiors, towards which electrons and protons flow and discharge in a continuous tornadic lightning clothed surface. The radiation output depends on the star`s mass, its surface area and the density of the current flowing onto it. On its surface the higher elements can be built up and the material for planets can be formed.

At the centre of galaxies are plasmoids which are solar system sized structures of electrical and magnetic fields and currents. Into the plasmoids electrons and positrons are drawn directly from the cosmic vacuum. They are there combined into stable protons and neutrons and nuclei of atoms. The plasmoid as a whole acts as a ‘surface’ for the formation of structured matter.

The cosmos as a whole can be considered to be a ‘surface’. Its space is continuously extensioning at c and particles, atoms, molecules and bodies are being continuously actualised and maintained in existence throughout it. Extensioning can be considered to be restrained acceleration balanced by the unity of the Universe. As matter is actualised continuously into space its acceleration at c is restrained and we recognise this as its mass. Weight may vary from planet to planet but mass does not. The weight of a body depends on it mass and the gravity at that surface, but extensioning is the same universally and the mass of any thing is a multiple of the mass of its fundamental electrons, positrons, protons and neutrons. Extensioning, creation and unity are the same everywhere in the universal cosmos and mass is a constant of their balancing.

The surfaces of planets, stars and plasmoids produce different outcomes because they are individual and local, but the cosmos is universal and mass produced by the balance of its forces is one universal constant. Everything in the cosmos exists on the balance of forces which can be likened to a surface on which they rest.

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER FOUR

A NEW WAY OF SEEING THE COSMOS 176

STAR FORMING CURRENTS (diagram) 179

HALTON ARP SAW THE PATTERN (diagrams) 183

THE SITUATION IN PARTCLE PHYSICS 196

THE PROGRESSION OF PARTICLES (tables of particles) 199

THE VACUUM IS THE FOUNT OF CREATION 206

PLASMOIDS OF CREATION 208

THE DANCE OF THE PARTICLES 210

PROTONS AND NEUTRONS AND QUARKS 213

THE NEUTRINO 218

TO SUMMARISE THE COSMIC PROCESS 224

EXTENSION AND EXPANSION 227

THE EMPTI NESS OF THE COSMOS 229

NOTHINGNESS AND THE UNLIMITED 231

THE FREEDOM OF LIFE 233

OSMIC SURFACES 235