INTRODUCTION

Much of cosmology is founded upon our understanding of
gravitation and the interpretation of the radiation spectrum of
the stars and the galaxies to which they belong. The physics
applicable in our laboratories here on Earth is relied upon by
cosmologists as they extrapolate well beyond the limits of the
empirical data on which our knowledge of physics is really based.
This leads to ideas such as Black Holes, the Big Bang, the
Expanding Universe, the Neutron Star and even Worm Holes in
Space-Time through which it is supposed astronauts may travel to
enter into other universes and other cosmological time zones.

Seldom do we hear the voice of dissent on these matters from
within the closed world of the astrophysicist. There are
unanswered questions to be sure, but funding which supports the
search for those answers is used for ever-onward extrapolation.
When, I wonder, will there be academic funding for someone
who has the good sense to say “something is wrong” and is willing
to track back to survey the faults in the path already followed?

COSMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS

We know that stars like the Sun are composed mainly of
hydrogen and that they radiate heat and light because they are
hot enough to be ionized. This means that the hydrogen is
monatomic and that some of the atoms have shed an electron. It
means that there are free electrons and free protons being
jostled around at the Sun’s surface, because the hydrogen atom
is nothing other than a proton with a satellite electron and
ionization means their separation.
Were it not for the effect of gravity, the deployment of
charge in the resulting body of stellar plasma would find
equilibrium with virtually zero electric potential appropriate
to an electrically neutral charge distribution. However, we know
that gravitation acts between two bodies with a force
proportional to the product of their masses. Therefore the mutual
gravitational acceleration between protons, which have 1836 times
the mass of electrons, must distort this charge distribution.

It means that the Sun must have a positive electric
potential, just as it has a negative gravitational potential.
Matter, when free to move under the influence of gravitational
forces, seeks a state of lower potential, but in the stellar
plasma that means a commensurate increase in electric potential.
How does Nature cope with this dilemma?
The answer can be worked out as a simple mathematical
exercise which any high school physics student should be able to
perform. Nature allows gravity to bring just enough hydrogen
atoms into close ionizing encounters to free enough protons to
account for a positive electric charge density equal to the mass
density of the hydrogen gas multiplied by the square root of G,
the constant of gravitation. [The detailed analysis is in
Appendix I of my book ‘Physics Unified’ ISBN 0 85056 009 8].

In other words, the maximum mass density of a hydrogen star
can be little different from that calculable from compacting
rigid spheres, each having the mass of the hydrogen atom and the
radius of the electron’s K-shell orbit around its proton nucleus.
Furthermore, there will be a distributed uniform positive charge
density throughout the body of the star, neutralized by an
enclosing ionospheric surface sphere formed by an electron gas.

The high school physics student who has been introduced to
Bohr’s theory of the hydrogen atom will know that the relevant
radius is 5.29 billionths of centimetre. Standard physics data
sources show that it takes 0.67×10²⁴ hydrogen atoms to sum to one gram.
From these data, that physics student, if reasonably astute is estimating how small spheres
pack together to fill a space cube, can work out the mass density of that star.

The cosmological question this poses is “How does that
theoretical mass density compare with the known mean mass
density, 1.41 gm/cc of the Sun?”
When you work out the answer to this question you will see
reason for asking why what has just been described is not
mentioned in textbooks on astronomy. You may further wonder what
governs the temperature of the Sun and you should be puzzled by
the following questions.

“If the Sun has a uniform mass density throughout its whole
body, owing to the perfect balance of gravitational pressure and
electrostatic repulsion, then its pressure is uniform throughout
its whole body as contained within the bounding ionospherical
electron shell. Is this statement true or false?” “If true,
then is it not likely that the interior of the Sun has a
temperature little different from that at its surface?” “In that
case, how can we ever even begin to believe that the energy
source which sustains the sun is of nuclear origin, unless we
accept the possibility of cold fusion?” “If the statement is
untrue then where is the flaw in the argument developed above?”
“Ought we not to see this question discussed in textbooks on
astrophysics?”

Now, let us digress to mention the so-called Neutron Star.
The neutron has no electric charge. Hypothetically, therefore,
if one could capture enough neutrons within a confined space,
with no other matter present, then gravity could act unrestrained
by electric potential and the neutrons would cluster into a very
compact form having a mass density enormously greater than the
1.41 gm/cc of the sun.
However, we have used that word ‘if’ and quite glibly
presumed that the neutrons will not behave as we know they do in
our experiments. We know from those experiments that they are
unstable and have a mean lifetime of a few minutes, decaying to
become a proton and shedding an electron. Question: “Would not
that return us to the scenario of the hydrogen star already
discussed?” “Does not that mean that a neutron star is simply a
figment of imagination?”

Surely, there is something wrong with astrophysics if this
kind of question is not properly addressed in the scientific
literature. Now, I am not an astrophysicist but I found that my
early writings, which concerned the electrodynamic nature of
gravitation, were judged defective because they conflicted with
certain cosmological assumptions. I was building my account of
gravitation on the electromagnetic principles to which I had been
led by my experimental research in magnetism on the laboratory
test bench.
I found that the mere suggestion that gravitation can be
explained without building the argument on the doctrinaire
principles of Einstein’s theory of relativity was a sufficient
basis for rejection. Yet the theory which emerged from my
research even allowed the derivation of the value of the constant
of gravitation G in terms of the electron’s charge/mass ratio.
[You will find the formula for G on page 115 of my book ‘Physics
Unified’].

It is really for this reason that I have, in these lectures,
decided to attack the establishment position, rather than defend
my own theory, though I would have been delighted if I had ever
needed to defend what I have proposed. It has never been
attacked. Astrophysicists and particle physicists have simply
chosen to ignore my writings, even though I provide the bridging
link between particle physics and cosmology by the unifying role
played by the force of gravity.

Before I advance too far from what I have said above I must
mention that, as we proceed, I shall be explaining why Einstein’s
theory of relativity, whether in its special or general form, is
wrong. It is wrong on every count, but in Part II of my Web page
on that subject I will direct these particular comments at the
cosmologists who have chosen to ignore the observations of two
astronomers of Villanova University in Pennsylvania. Edward
Guinan and Frank Maloney proved Einstein wrong by drawing
attention to the measured the rate of perihelion motion of the
two stars forming the double star system DI Herculis.
Einstein’s theory required that their anomalous rate of
advance of perihelion should be some 196 times faster than it is
for planet Mercury. It was found to be only one seventh of the
predicted amount for the classical and relativistic effects
combined! Einstein’s theory has, therefore, to be wrong!
A small additional component was also required from
Newtonian gravitational theory, owing to the astrophysicist’s
assumption that the gaseous plasma constituting a star can be
dragged by gravitational action of the other star in a binary
pair.

In the event, it was found that the observed rate of
perihelion advance was so small as to rule out any prospect of
Einstein’s theory being of any relevance, but, surprisingly, the
plasma drag was not in evidence either. Now, what might that
prove? Well, if you have understood what I have described above
concerning electric and gravitational potentials in stars being
in balance, you will understand that the action between matter
in two stars in a binary system will conform with the same
principle. In other words, there can be no gravitational drag
effect adding to the perihelion advance. You see, there can be
no gravitational ‘tide’ effects if the star has a uniform mass
density. In that context it reacts as if it were a homogeneous
solid.

The Guinan and Maloney observations, as reported on p. 23
of the August 29, 1985 issue of New Scientist, therefore serve
the dual purpose of proving Einstein’s theory is wrong and also
verifying my proposition that the mass density within a star is
not concentrated into a non-uniform distribution by the force of
gravitation.
The importance of this to cosmological science cannot be
overestimated. It bears upon that question of how a nuclear
fusion reaction can be initiated to feed the star’s energy
output. It obliges one to consider the prospect of a cold fusion
process or to look for other explanations for the stellar energy
source.
It should raise questions but where are those questions
discussed in the science literature? Why do cosmologists waste
time theorizing about Black Holes when they do not have the
answers to the issues I am raising here?

ENERGY RADIATION?

As we proceed on this cosmological theme I shall explore
three fundamental aspects of physics which need particular
scrutiny. These are (i) the interpretation of the spectral red
shift as a Doppler Effect, (ii) the validity of Maxwell’s
equations and (iii) the radiation of energy.
These three subjects are intermeshed in a way that has
seemingly eluded the physicists of our modern age. There is so
much wrong with what has come to be accepted and so much that I have to say on this matter, that I can but proceed a step at a time
in the hope that the reader will bear with me, even though it may
seem unbelievable that there is such scope for challenging
physics that has come to be accepted.

To most physicists Maxwell’s equations stand supreme because
they withstood the onslaught of the revolution introduced by
Einstein’s theory. They are compliant to Lorentz transformation.
Yet they lack an essential symmetry, a failing which was
deceptive, in that it caused scientists to think about the
so-called ‘magnetic monopole’, something that is also an illusion
with no real foundation.

At this preliminary stage I will not use mathematics to show
how the equations should be revised. It suffices to keep in mind
what we can all witness as we watch waves ripple over the surface
of water and the fact that electromagnetic waves are really no
different so far as the energy factor is concerned.
In an electromagnetic wave there are two energy forms. One
is the electric potential energy, which rises and falls as the
wave ripples along through empty space. The other is the energy
of lateral motion we associate with those waves, namely the
magnetic energy, which is really the electrodynamic component
associated with that rise and fall of electric potential energy.
Now, in the water analogy, the wave on the surface of water
involves the rise and fall of water, which involves corresponding
changes in the gravitational potential of that water. This is
equivalent to the electric potential of the electromagnetic wave.
The motion of the water, meaning the kinetic energy associated
with that up and down movement, is equivalent to magnetic energy
of the electromagnetic wave.

The obvious conclusion to draw from this is that it is
Nature’s way to provide that the propagation of waves in a real
medium involves the harmonious exchange of energy as between the
static and dynamic potential states. Throw a stone into a pool
of water and the water displaced will mean a slight rise of the
equilibrium level of water in the pool, but it will also set up
a propagating wave or ripple which does not transfer water in the
propagation direction, save for an oscillation over the range of
half a wavelength.
The way in which Maxwell’s equations have been formulated
implies, however, that the propagation of an electromagnetic wave
requires, not the exchange of energy between the electric
potential and electrodynamic states, but rather their increase
and decrease together in time phase. This forces the energy to
travel with the wave at its propagation velocity and leads to
some rather bewildering problems when we consider wave
interference. In short, Maxwell’s equations do not represent a
natural wave situation.

You may then say that this merely indicates that the vacuum
as a medium which transports electromagnetic waves is not a real
medium and that we can only base our theories on empirical
evidence. If that evidence indicates the radiation of energy by
a radio antenna, then the radio wave has to convey energy,
notwithstanding what one might expect from the ripple on water
analogy.
However, bear with me as I pose a further question. How do
we know that the electromagnetic waves we receive from remote
galaxies really do transport the energy shed by the source stars
and convey it towards us at the speed of light for thousands and,
indeed, millions of years, without shedding any of that energy
on route?

Could it not be that, just as we see when we throw a bucket
of water into a pool, the initial effect is the deployment of
that water as it spreads from its point of entry, but that the
onward ripple, as an up and down oscillation of water already
there in the pool, merely spreads to remote parts of the pool as
a natural wave? The wave zone near the source is, on this basis,
a forced wave having the form analogous to that of Maxwell’s
equations. May it not be that the electromagnetic wave initiated
as a forced wave sheds its energy over an initial range and then
travels on as a natural wave conveying a virtually negligible
amount of the energy shed by the source?

Maxwell’s equations need only slight revision, the mere
inclusion of a mathematical operator j which signifies quadrature
time phasing, and they would then comply with the natural wave
mode as well as still satisfying the Lorentz transformations.
However, we would then have scope for understanding how a
star can radiate energy to set up electromagnetic waves which
propagate over distances measured in light years, whilst the bulk
of the energy shed to set up those waves is dispersed to become
matter whilst still within the grasp of the star’s gravity field.
It would thereby return to the star and sustain its mass-energy
content. Such a possibility would surely ease the cosmologist’s
problems of understanding how a star’s energy radiation is
sustained.

Of course, as ever, I expect the astrophysicist to view this
as mere speculation and so reject what I propose, but for those
interested in the prospect of regeneration of energy and the
theory of radio communication I invite close scrutiny of the
experimental research I shall be reporting in these Web pages.
This concerns the findings of Dave Gieskieng of Arvada, Colorado
using special antennae specially designed to transmit and receive
natural electromagnetic waves.