2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00

199 lines
10 KiB
Plaintext

(word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2)
Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501
Sponsored by Vangard Sciences
PO BOX 1031
Mesquite, TX 75150
There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS
on duplicating, publishing or distributing the
files on KeelyNet!
March 8, 1991
ZPE2PT2.ASC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II of Review and Outlook
Another modification concerns the definition for the term "vacuum"
in physics, as documented by a paper in the American Scientist,
March-April 1980, titled "Is The Vacuum Really Empty?" by Prof.
Walter Greiner, Univ. of Frankfurt, BRD, and Prof. Joseph H.
Hamiliton, Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN.
The authors conclude that a neutral vacuum is by no means as "empty"
as the previously claimed in our textbooks, and suggests a new
definition as follows:
"The vacuum is the lowest stable state that a region of
space can have WHILE BEING PENETRATED BY CERTAIN FIELDS".
Because of the tremendous time lag in our educational system, many
research projects and their ensuing experimental data have been
withheld from public scrutiny. The scientific community tends to
have a vested interest in preserving the system it created and of
which it is a part. It responds to new situations through the
coloration of this attachment.
A case in point are the carefully conducted experiments of T.T.
Brown with charged bodies in a high vacuum, as described in mt
booklet Ether Fields (1977). These experiments suggest the actual
presence of certain fields in vacuum, whether we call them
gravitaional field, tachion-field, ether field, neutrino or Fermi-
sea, etc. is of secondary importance at this moment. Although Brown
spent, reportedly, more than $200,000 of his own funds over several
decades on such experiments, he was nevertheless unable to have the
results published in the scientific media of America.
Things are even worse when it comes to experiments conducted abroad,
which often tend to confirm disregarded experimental results on this
continent, as we shall see shortly. To highlight the wide
discrepancies between orthodox (and obsolete) dogmas and actual,
physical realities pertaining to the true subatomic structures as we
know them to be today, let us briefly review the structures of the
matter:
A molecule is the smallest division of a substance. Further
division would cause it to cease being a substance. The smallest
true molecules can be illustrated when we use the globe of the Earth
Page 1
for our standard. If a single drop of water were magnified until it
was as big as the Earth, each molecule would be about the size of a
tennis ball.
On the next step down, an atom is the unit which makes up the nature
of the molecule, consisting of the nucleus and the surrounding
electrons to render the atom "stable". An atom of hydrogen contains
one proton and one electron to balance or neutralize the proton.
Matter then is divisible into electrons and protons.
But - and here comes the rub: Between electrons and protons are
spaces so vast, in comparison with the masses of each, that, if the
proton in the carbon atom were the size of a golf ball hanging from
a ceiling of the great hall at Pennsylvania Station in New York, its
electrons would be represented by six small wasps winging in a
little knot against the four walls of the gigantic structure of the
building!
In effect, one could claim there is a little final solidity of
substance to anything: The Universe consists of "emptiness"' charged
with electrical energy! If we translate the above to the
measurements and terminology of the physicist and "magnify" the atom
mathematically, with all its distances and dimensions kept in
proportion so that the orbit of the electron would have a diameter
equal to that of the Earth about the Sun, approximately 184 million
miles, the diameter of the electron itself would only be 2000 miles,
and the diameter of the nucleus, where mass and weight of the atom
are truly concentrated, can be taken as 2 miles only.
We thus obtain a picture of a central mass with a diameter of 2
miles (nucleus), another object with a diameter of 2000 miles (the
electron in the case of the hydrogen atom) at a distance of 92
million miles away from it, orbiting the nucleus. Evidently, there
is plenty of room inside this system. And "room" is not a vacuum,
it is not nothingness, but space itself, spatial energy, a field
which can be identified with the ether of the past - and the future.
Nobel prize winner, Max Planck, during a lecture in Florence, Italy,
once made a truly remarkable statement which describes the problem
facing the physicist today:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-
headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as
the result of my research about the atoms this much:
'THERE IS NO MATTER AS SUCH!"
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force
which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds
this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must
assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and
intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter".
This cosmic matrix is needed if we want to explain "action at a
difference"' lines of force, stresses, a magnetic field and so on.
When the concept of the ether was abandoned, it had to be replaced
by the concept of "space" instead. In reality, we merely switched
terminology.
We used to say that "ether fills all space". But "filling" is no
exactly the descriptive word to use. Perhaps we should rather
define it: "Ether is a condition of space in which electrical
Page 2
manifestations for the atomic construction of material is possible".
This primordial energy is "free" or in an uncondensed state. It
exists in interstellar space but remains unrecognizable until it
begins to coagulate or gets into a vortex pattern.
The claim of our textbooks that the Michelson-Morley experiment
"disproved" the existence of the ether is incorrect. It merely
disproved the existence of a noticeable ether "drift" or "drag". As
an analogy, if someone would postulate that the absence of wind
disproves the existence of the atmosphere around our planet, the
fallacy of this postulate would be immediatly apparent to all.
"Michelson and Morley centered their attention on the Earth's
orbital velocity (30 km per second). They had no knowledge of the
existence of galaxies; of motions of galaxies in relation to each
other; of the motion of our solar system in our galaxy.... Their
negative results are explainable on the basis of pre-1900 classical
mechanics, so provide no proof of the absence of ether or Louis de
Broglie's 'subquantic medium'.
Thus, the limited information to Michelson and Einstein is
emphasized by recent findings, particularly in astrophysic", writes
Dr. H.C. Dudley in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jan,
1975, under the title "Michelson's Hunch Was Right". And Dr. Dudley
continues: "In fact, 1929 saw Michelson still attempting to
experimentally demonstrate the ether, which his intuition and
reasoning told him ought to be present".
"Today most persons are largely unaware that the ether concept began
to be seriously reexamined by two of physics most notable laureates.
The ether is now being called the "neutrino sea" by astrophysicists,
and has been characterized as an energy-rich particulate, subquantic
medium. A rather voluminous literature on the subject is
accumulating as indicated by a recent review, The Cosmic Neutrino,
with 655 references covering only the period 1965-1972.....
It appears that an open-minded reexamination of this area of physics
is long overdue in order to open up new avenues of approaching to
this pressing problem.
END OF PART II
CONTINUE TO PART III
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have comments or other information relating to such topics
as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the
Vangard Sciences address as listed on the first page.
Thank you for your consideration, interest and support.
Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson
Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can be of service, you may contact
Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3