Chapter 1 Introduction

This book is about tapping the planetary energy field, as prophesied by the Ageless Wisdom teachings and envisioned by Nicholas Tesla, to harness, store and freely distribute clean, patents-free electricity for the benefit of humanity.

1.1 Basic Premise

The Sun is to the solar system as the nucleus is to the physical atom

1.2 Current scientific model

The analogy between the Sun in the solar system and the nucleus in an atom is an interesting one, but it has its limitations:

Energy Source: In the solar system, the Sun is indeed the primary source of energy, providing light and heat through nuclear fusion. In an atom, the nucleus contains protons and neutrons, and while it holds most of the atom’s mass, it isn’t an energy source in the same way. Instead, energy in atoms is often discussed in terms of electron interactions and transitions.
Force Fields: The Sun’s gravitational field governs the orbits of planets, while in an atom, the nucleus’s positive charge creates an electric field that attracts negatively charged electrons. This is a similarity in terms of central forces, but the nature of the forces (gravitational vs. electromagnetic) is different.
Positive and Negative Charges: The Sun is not positively charged; it is a massive body with a gravitational pull. In contrast, the nucleus is positively charged due to protons, and electrons are negatively charged, creating an electromagnetic force.

While there are parallels in terms of central forces and structure, the analogy breaks down when considering the types of forces and the role of energy. The Sun’s role in the solar system and the nucleus’s role in an atom are governed by different physical principles.

1.3 An alternative cosmological theory

The Electric Universe model differs from the accepted thermonuclear model of the Sun in several key ways:

Energy Source: The thermonuclear model posits that the Sun’s energy is generated through nuclear fusion reactions occurring in its core, where hydrogen atoms fuse to form helium, releasing energy. In contrast, the Electric Universe model suggests that the Sun’s energy comes from external electric currents in space, which power the Sun like a giant electric light bulb.
Role of Gravity and Electromagnetism: The traditional model emphasizes gravity as the primary force governing the Sun’s structure and energy production. The Electric Universe model, however, emphasizes electromagnetism, proposing that electric and magnetic forces play a significant role in shaping the Sun and its activity.
Solar Phenomena: In the thermonuclear model, solar phenomena like sunspots and solar flares are explained by magnetic activity generated by the Sun’s internal processes. The Electric Universe model attributes these phenomena to external electric currents and interactions with the Sun’s magnetic field.

Overall, the Electric Universe model challenges the conventional understanding by focusing on electromagnetic forces and external energy sources, whereas the accepted model relies on nuclear fusion and gravitational forces.

Reference: The Electric Bridge https://www.lucistrust.org/the_electric_bridge

1.4 Fundamental Forces

At the macroscopic level, we primarily observe gravitational (G) and electromagnetic (EM) forces, while at the subatomic level, the strong and weak nuclear forces play crucial roles. Here’s a comparison and contrast between these forces across the two levels:

1.4.1 Macroscopic Level: Gravitational and Electromagnetic Forces

Gravitational Force:
- Nature: Always attractive, acts between masses.
- Range: Infinite range, dominant at large scales (e.g., planetary, stellar).
- Strength: Weakest of the four fundamental forces but accumulates with mass.
- Shielding: Cannot be shielded or blocked.
Electromagnetic Force:
- Nature: Can be attractive or repulsive, acts between charged particles.
- Range: Infinite range, but practical effects diminish with distance due to shielding and cancellation.
- Strength: Much stronger than gravity at small scales.
- Shielding: Can be shielded or attenuated by materials.

1.4.2 Subatomic Level: Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces

Strong Nuclear Force:
- Nature: Attractive force that holds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus.
- Range: Very short range, effective only at subatomic distances (about 1 femtometer).
- Strength: Strongest of the four fundamental forces.
- Role: Responsible for the stability of atomic nuclei.
Weak Nuclear Force:
- Nature: Responsible for processes like beta decay in radioactive atoms.
- Range: Very short range, even shorter than the strong force.
- Strength: Weaker than the strong and electromagnetic forces but stronger than gravity.
- Role: Plays a key role in nuclear reactions and particle interactions.

1.4.3 Parallels and Contrasts

Range: Both gravitational and electromagnetic forces have infinite range, while strong and weak forces are limited to subatomic distances.
Strength: The strong force is the strongest at the subatomic level, while gravity is the weakest at the macroscopic level. Electromagnetic forces are strong at small scales but can be shielded.
Nature of Interaction: Gravity is always attractive, while electromagnetic forces can be both attractive and repulsive. The strong force is always attractive, binding nucleons, whereas the weak force is involved in particle transformations.
Role in Stability: The strong force ensures the stability of atomic nuclei, while gravity governs the structure and dynamics of the universe at large scales.

Therefore, while gravitational and electromagnetic forces dominate at macroscopic scales, the strong and weak nuclear forces are crucial for the stability and interactions of particles at the subatomic level. Each force has unique characteristics that define its role in the universe.

Furthermore, while gravity and the weak nuclear force are considered “weak” in terms of their relative strength, they play crucial roles in their respective domains. Electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces are “strong” and dominate interactions at atomic and subatomic levels.

A way to categorize them based on their relative strengths, but it’s important to consider the context in which each force operates:

Weak Forces

Gravitational Force:
- Relative Strength: It is the weakest of the four fundamental forces.
- Context: Despite its weakness, gravity is the dominant force at astronomical scales due to its infinite range and cumulative effect with mass. It governs the motion of planets, stars, and galaxies.
Weak Nuclear Force:
- Relative Strength: Stronger than gravity but weaker than electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces.
- Context: It operates at subatomic scales and is responsible for processes like beta decay. Its effects are not noticeable at macroscopic scales.

Strong Forces

Electromagnetic Force:
- Relative Strength: Much stronger than gravity and the weak nuclear force.
- Context: It operates at both atomic and macroscopic scales, responsible for chemical bonding, electricity, magnetism, and light. It can be both attractive and repulsive.
Strong Nuclear Force:
- Relative Strength: The strongest of the four fundamental forces.
- Context: It acts at very short ranges within atomic nuclei, binding protons and neutrons together. Its strength is crucial for the stability of matter.

1.5 Electromagnetic Radiation

Energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation can interact with materials and alter their atomic structure, which can, in turn, affect the strength and behavior of electromagnetic fields.

1.5.1 Absorption and Atomic Structure

Absorption: When electromagnetic radiation, such as light or radio waves, interacts with a material, it can be absorbed by the atoms or molecules in that material. This absorption can excite electrons, moving them to higher energy levels or even causing them to be ejected from the atom (as in the photoelectric effect).
Structural Changes: This interaction can lead to changes in the atomic or molecular structure of the material, such as ionization or changes in chemical bonds. These changes can affect the material’s electrical and magnetic properties.

1.5.2 Modifying Electromagnetic Fields

Field Strength: By altering the material’s properties, the absorbed energy can influence how the material interacts with external electromagnetic fields. For example, a material might become more conductive or change its magnetic permeability, which can modify how it shields or transmits electromagnetic fields.
Field Generation: Additionally, the absorbed energy can lead to the generation of new electromagnetic fields. For instance, when a material absorbs light and re-emits it at a different wavelength, this is a form of altering the electromagnetic field.

While energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation can modify the properties of materials and thus influence electromagnetic fields, the process involves complex interactions at the atomic level. The ability to modify field strength depends on how the material’s properties are changed by the absorbed energy.

1.6 Field Shields

When materials absorb energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation, this can lead to changes in their properties, which can either augment or diminish their interaction with electromagnetic fields.

1.6.1 Augmenting (“Unshielding”) EM Fields

Increased Conductivity: If a material becomes more conductive after absorbing energy, it might allow electromagnetic fields to pass through more easily, effectively reducing its shielding capability. This could be seen as “unshielding” the field.
Emission of Radiation: Absorbed energy can also cause a material to emit its own electromagnetic radiation, potentially adding to the existing fields and thus augmenting them.

1.6.2 Diminishing (Shielding) EM Fields

Increased Absorption: Conversely, if the absorbed energy causes a material to become more absorptive or reflective, it can enhance its ability to shield electromagnetic fields. This is often the goal in designing materials for electromagnetic shielding.
Magnetic Properties: Changes in magnetic properties, such as increased magnetic permeability, can also enhance a material’s ability to redirect or absorb magnetic fields, thus improving shielding.

The interaction between absorbed energy and material properties can indeed modify how electromagnetic fields are managed, either by enhancing or reducing the material’s shielding effectiveness. This dynamic interaction is key in applications like designing better shielding materials or optimizing materials for specific electromagnetic interactions.

1.7 Alternative hypothesis

A model on how G (gravitational) and EM (electromagnetic) forces interact: EM energy is absorbed by gravitational mass to augment or diminish its EM field. What we observe as G forces is an interaction of energy (EM radiation) with mass.

The idea proposed doesn’t seem to align with the current understanding of physics regarding how gravitational (G) and electromagnetic (EM) forces interact.

1.7.1 Current Understanding of G and EM Forces

Independent Forces: In classical physics, gravitational and electromagnetic forces are considered separate fundamental forces. Gravity is described by general relativity as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass, while electromagnetism is described by Maxwell’s equations and involves the interaction of electric and magnetic fields.
Energy and Mass: The equation \(E=mc^2\) from Einstein’s theory of relativity relates energy (E) to mass (m) with \(c\) being the speed of light. This equation shows that mass can be converted into energy and vice versa, but it doesn’t imply that electromagnetic energy directly influences gravitational forces.
Absorption and Interaction: While electromagnetic energy can be absorbed by materials and affect their electromagnetic properties, this process doesn’t directly translate to altering gravitational forces. Gravitational interactions are not typically described in terms of electromagnetic energy absorption.

1.7.2 Theoretical Considerations

Unified Theories: There are theoretical frameworks, like quantum gravity and string theory, that aim to unify all fundamental forces, including gravity and electromagnetism. However, these are still speculative and not experimentally confirmed.
Energy-Mass Interaction: While energy and mass are interchangeable under certain conditions (like in nuclear reactions), the direct interaction between electromagnetic energy and gravitational forces as you described isn’t supported by current scientific evidence.

While electromagnetic energy can influence the electromagnetic properties of materials, the interaction between gravitational and electromagnetic forces as a direct consequence of energy absorption isn’t part of the established scientific model. The forces are treated as distinct, with their interactions being a subject of ongoing research in theoretical physics.

1.7.3 Mainstream Scientific View

Gravity and Mass: In the standard model of physics, gravity is a fundamental force that arises from the curvature of spacetime caused by mass, as described by Einstein’s general relativity. This model does not involve electromagnetic forces or plasma in the creation of gravitational forces.
Plasma and Electromagnetism: Plasma, being a state of matter consisting of charged particles, interacts primarily through electromagnetic forces. It can conduct electricity and generate magnetic fields, but these interactions are separate from gravitational forces.

1.7.4 Electric Universe (EU) Theory

EU Perspective: The Electric Universe theory posits that electromagnetic forces play a more significant role in the universe than is acknowledged by mainstream science. Proponents suggest that plasma and electromagnetic interactions could influence cosmic structures and dynamics.
Gravity in EU: In the context of EU theory, there might be suggestions that electromagnetic interactions, particularly in plasma, could have effects that mimic or influence gravitational forces. However, these ideas are not supported by empirical evidence in the same way that general relativity is.

1.7.5 Scientific Consensus

Lack of Evidence: The mainstream scientific community requires rigorous empirical evidence and mathematical consistency for theories to be accepted. Currently, the Electric Universe theory lacks the experimental support and theoretical framework that general relativity and electromagnetism have.
Ongoing Research: While alternative theories can inspire new lines of inquiry, any claims about the interaction of plasma, electromagnetic forces, and gravity would need substantial evidence to challenge or augment the current understanding.

While it’s important to explore how different forces might interact, the established scientific model treats gravity and electromagnetism as distinct forces, with gravity being a result of mass and spacetime curvature, not directly influenced by plasma or electromagnetic energy.

1.8 The Theory

The Electric Universe theory presents an alternative view of cosmic phenomena, emphasizing the role of electricity and electromagnetic forces over gravity. Here are some key points regarding gravitational effects in the context of the Electric Universe theory:

Electromagnetic Gravity: The EU theory suggests that gravity might be a manifestation of electromagnetic forces, albeit at a much weaker scale. This perspective challenges the traditional view of gravity as a fundamental force distinct from electromagnetism¹.
Electricity as a Cosmic Driver: Proponents of the EU theory argue that electricity and electromagnetic interactions are fundamental to the structure and behavior of the universe. They propose that these forces, rather than gravity, are responsible for shaping cosmic structures like galaxies and stars².
Plasma and Cosmic Phenomena: The theory emphasizes the role of plasma, the most common state of matter in the universe, in cosmic interactions. Plasma filaments, which are electrically conductive, are thought to play a significant role in the formation and dynamics of celestial bodies³.
Criticism and Controversy: The EU theory is often criticized for lacking empirical support and mathematical rigor. It is considered pseudoscientific by much of the scientific community, which relies on well-established theories like general relativity to explain gravitational phenomena⁴.

In summary, while the Electric Universe theory offers an alternative perspective on the role of electromagnetic forces in the universe, it remains controversial and is not widely accepted within the scientific community due to its lack of empirical evidence and theoretical consistency.

Sources

1.9 Pseudoscience?

Testing alternative hypotheses is not inherently pseudoscience. In fact, it’s a fundamental part of the scientific process. However, certain characteristics can lead an alternative hypothesis to be labeled as pseudoscience:

Lack of Empirical Evidence: Scientific theories are grounded in empirical evidence. If an alternative hypothesis lacks experimental support or cannot be tested through observation, it may be considered pseudoscientific.
Absence of Falsifiability: A key criterion for a scientific hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable, meaning it can be proven wrong through experimentation or observation. If a hypothesis cannot be tested in a way that could potentially disprove it, it may fall into the realm of pseudoscience.
Reliance on Anecdotal Evidence: Pseudoscience often relies on anecdotal evidence or personal testimonies rather than rigorous scientific data. This can lead to conclusions that are not scientifically valid.
Lack of Peer Review: Scientific research is typically subject to peer review, where other experts in the field evaluate the methodology and conclusions. If a hypothesis is not published in peer-reviewed journals, it may not have undergone this critical scrutiny.
Resistance to Change: In science, theories are revised or discarded when new evidence contradicts them. Pseudoscience often resists change, clinging to ideas despite contradictory evidence.
Use of Scientific-Sounding Language: Pseudoscience may use complex or scientific-sounding language to give the appearance of credibility, even if the underlying concepts are not scientifically valid.
Conspiracy Theories: Pseudoscience sometimes involves claims of conspiracy, suggesting that mainstream science is suppressing the truth. This can detract from the scientific credibility of the hypothesis.

In summary, while testing alternative hypotheses is a valuable part of scientific inquiry, for a hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must be based on empirical evidence, be falsifiable, and undergo rigorous peer review. When these criteria are not met, the hypothesis may be considered pseudoscientific.

1.9.1 Hypotheses and Scientific Testing

Nature of Hypotheses: A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon, serving as a starting point for investigation. Initially, it may not have empirical support, which is why it needs to be tested.
Testing and Evidence: The scientific process involves testing hypotheses through experiments and observations to gather empirical evidence. This process helps determine whether the hypothesis is supported or refuted.
Falsifiability: A key aspect of a scientific hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable. This means it should be possible to design experiments or observations that could potentially disprove the hypothesis.

1.9.2 Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience

Scientific Approach: In science, hypotheses are continually tested and revised based on new evidence. A hypothesis that lacks initial support isn’t pseudoscientific; it’s part of the normal scientific process. The distinction lies in how the hypothesis is treated—whether it is open to revision and testing.
Pseudoscience Characteristics: Pseudoscience often involves hypotheses that are not open to falsification or revision, rely on anecdotal evidence, or are presented as definitive without rigorous testing. The issue arises when claims are made without the willingness to adapt or test them scientifically.

The scientific process embraces the testing and revision of hypotheses. A lack of initial empirical support doesn’t make a hypothesis pseudoscientific; rather, it’s the approach to testing and willingness to revise based on evidence that distinguishes scientific inquiry from pseudoscience.

The distinction between hypotheses and theories is crucial in scientific discourse:

Hypotheses: These are tentative explanations or predictions that are tested through experimentation and observation. They are not presented as definitive but as starting points for investigation.
Theories: In science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of evidence. Theories are broader in scope than hypotheses and have withstood extensive testing and validation.
Pseudoscientific Theories: These are often presented as definitive explanations without the rigorous testing and empirical support that characterize scientific theories. They may resist falsification and lack openness to revision based on new evidence.

1.9.3 Key Distinctions

Scientific Theories: These are supported by a substantial body of evidence and are open to revision as new data becomes available. They are subject to peer review and ongoing testing.
Pseudoscientific Claims: These often lack empirical support, are not open to falsification, and may be presented as conclusive without the necessary scientific validation.

It’s important to differentiate between alternative hypotheses, which are part of the scientific process, and pseudoscientific theories, which lack the empirical support and openness to revision that characterize legitimate scientific inquiry. This highlights the importance of precise language in discussing scientific concepts.

1.9.4 Historical Context of Scientific Ideas

Electromagnetism and Maxwell: Before James Clerk Maxwell’s work, the understanding of electromagnetism was fragmented. While there were observations and experiments (like those of Faraday), a comprehensive theoretical framework was lacking. Belief in electromagnetic phenomena wasn’t pseudoscience; it was based on empirical observations that awaited a unifying theory.
Heliocentrism: Before Copernicus and Galileo, the heliocentric model was not widely accepted, largely due to the lack of observational evidence and the dominance of the geocentric model. However, it wasn’t pseudoscience; it was an alternative hypothesis that required further evidence and theoretical development to gain acceptance.

1.9.5 The Role of Belief and Creativity in Science

Belief in Hypotheses: Scientists often need a degree of belief or conviction in their hypotheses to pursue them against prevailing views. This belief drives the search for evidence and the development of new theories.
Pseudoscience vs. Emerging Science: The term “pseudoscience” is typically applied to ideas that resist empirical testing or revision. Emerging scientific ideas, even if initially lacking full empirical support, are not pseudoscientific if they are open to testing and refinement.
Inhibiting Creativity: Labeling emerging ideas as pseudoscience too early can indeed stifle creativity and exploration. The scientific process thrives on questioning and testing, and history shows that many revolutionary ideas faced skepticism before gaining acceptance.

We’ve touched on an important aspect of the history and philosophy of science: the evolution of ideas and how they are perceived before they become widely accepted. The distinction between pseudoscience and emerging scientific ideas lies in the willingness to test, revise, and build upon hypotheses. While skepticism is a healthy part of science, it’s important to maintain an open mind to new ideas that challenge established theories, as they can lead to significant advancements. These examples highlight how critical it is to balance skepticism with openness to innovation in the scientific process.

The Mystery of Electricity