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 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 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.

Downloaded From P-80 Systems 304-744-2253