Open letters to the electric universe and expansion tectonics theorists

OPEN LETTERS SENT TO ADVOCATES FOR
THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE
THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE AND
AND
THE EXPANSION TECTONICS
THE EXPANSION TECTONICS
THEORIES,
THEORIES,
AND EXPLORING HOW THESE THEORIES CONNECT
David Ross Goben
Photo credit: NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope (PIA01322: Chaos at the Heart of Orion)

 Page 2
THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE AND
THE EXPANSION TECTONICS THEORIES,
By David Ross Goben.
Copyright © 2011-2021 by David Ross Goben. All rights reserved.
Kissimmee, FL, USA
First Released 10 September 2011. Revision 18.
(Note: All revisions have been to correct spelling, phrasing, grammar, to add clarifying
details, answer reader queries, and also to correct or further clarify these changes)
This document features the core letters and relevant supporting research essays.

 Page 3
Table of Contents
Dedication.....................................................................................................................4
Intuitive Consciousness..............................................................................................5
Notes to the Reader.....................................................................................................6
Abstract.........................................................................................................................9
Abstract Notes......................................................................................................11
Introduction.................................................................................................................19
The Letters..................................................................................................................32
Letter of 13 August 2011 (Correction for 11 August 2011)...................................33
Letter of 12 August 2011.......................................................................................42
Letter of 8 September 2011..................................................................................50
Introduction to Supplementary Background Resources Developed and
Employed as I Constructed This Document.......................................................70
Regarding the Impossibility of Black Holes...........................................................83
Exploring What Happened During the Solar Eclipse of 1919...............................93
Mythematic Sarcasm.............................................................................................99
Einstein, the Stumbling Manufactured Hero.......................................................102
Prelude...........................................................................................................102
Part One: Einstein as a Stumbling Hero............................................................114
Part Two: Concerning Those Who Made Einstein Great.....................................120
Important Reference Resources.............................................................................146
About the Author......................................................................................................148
Free Online PDF Documents Available by David Ross Goben...........................149
Open Letters Sent to Advocates for the Electric Universe and Expansion
Tectonics Theories.........................................................................................149
Enhancing Visual Basic .NET Applications Far Beyond the Scope of Visual Basic
6.0...................................................................................................................150
Doom 3 Walkthrough and Strategy Guide.........................................................151
Getting Fit After 40 - A Practical No-Nonsense Guide...........................................152
Also Available from the Author..............................................................................153
A Gnostic Cycle: Exploring the Origin of Christianity..........................................153
Recent Important Free PDF Public Posts on my Google Drive..........................154
NOTE: The reason this document embodies so may supplementary documents beyond the core
open letters is to help bring the outside laymen reader “up to speed” on the principle and also the
underlying material being discussed within these letters, so they will have a much more robust
understanding of it, and too, sometimes of the outright falsehoods that mainstream “science” has
admonished them to believe, even though the purveyors of these doctrines themselves quite often
do not even believe it. This additional material is comprised of papers that I wrote to round out my
research into the core material, to more fully explore the foundation of their underlying history.

 Page 4
Dedication.
For Leslie, wherever you are. I miss you…

 Page 5
Intuitive Consciousness.
“A desk, some pads and a pencil, and a large wastebasket to hold
all of my mistakes.”
—Albert Einstein, Princeton University, 1935, when he was asked what he would require for his
study.
“When faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other
respects, select the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.”
—Occam’s Razor; a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of
Ockham.
“Educated men are as much superior to uneducated men as the
living are to the dead.”
—Aristotle, 384–322 B.C.E.
“Our senses enable us to perceive only a minute portion of the
outside world.”
—Nikola Tesla, The Transmission of Electrical Energy Without Wires As a Means for Furthering
Peace, 1905.
“Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one
that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.”
—George Orwell, from a review in Poetry Quarterly, Winter 1945.
“Intuitive skepticism is the best route to learning absolutely
nothing.”
—Sir Laurence Gardner, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, 2000.
“Be careful when you look down your nose at someone because
you might be standing on your head.”
—David Ross Goben, Chariton, Iowa, 1970 (age 15).

 Page 6
Notes to the Reader.
Dear Reader, if instinct or experience compels you to dismiss material
shared herein, I beg you to grace me with an enormous favor of
intellectual generosity: Instead of simply discarding this document out of
hand, please take a moment to use this PDF document’s Comment option
so to embed within it notes regarding points you feel grate your senses and
kindly explain to me why you feel so. Cite as much evidence or links as
you feel is requisite to support your opinions. The latest versions of PDF
readers, like Adobe Reader and Microsoft Edge's PDF Reader allows you
to highlight text in PDF documents, add comments, or add comments to
highlighted text. Save that edited version and email it to me at
david.ross.goben@gmail.com. I would very much be interested in those
opinions, and I am especially excited to investigate different and
especially opposing views. If you have trouble downloading a PDF copy, I
would be happy to email it to you or give you a more accessible link. I
will also be just as happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Thanks so much to those of you who have already submitted opinions and
arguments, some repeatedly. Your invaluable input has most certainly helped
shape the present form of this document and has resulted in a deliciously
robust expansion of it, making the details for some originally minor points so
arresting and somwtimes so densely detailed they are now as exhaustive as a
Dostoyevsky novel. Information is the sweet nectar upon which I feed. Some
of you arguing, some quite passionately, sometimes about the use of a single
word, were often surprised that I actually do truly relish opposing opinions.
I am not one to rail or ridicule. To me, posturing is a pointless drivel – a
primitive defensive contrivance resorted to by those with no leg to stand on,
so I do not waste my time in indulging it. My views are but liquid, never cut
into stone, because a view can change with just a word that is spoken in
Truth. And Truth is more important than any personal opinion. I will rectify
such errors if you are correct, though I may choose to argue them using the
sources I drew from to make my points, to bolster my stance if they are proof
against your dispute. I ask only that you return such calm congeniality.
Sometimes, to protect our inner sense of understanding, we feel compelled to
instantly cease reading when our personal worldview is challenged. This is
owing to our primitive instinct of intuitive pessimism awakening, which we
use to block out anything that does not conform to our personal belief system
by giving us a sense of discomfort and threat; thus allowing only that which
agrees with our personal senses of Truth to pass through us with impressions
of peace and tranquility. But if we are never willing to listen to each other,
especially to opposing views, then we can never actually learn anything!

 Page 7
To truly understand something, we must look to all sides of it. Thus, when
seeking for the Truth of a thing, we should hunger for ALL of its facets,
no matter if they agree or disagree, inspire us or trouble us. In the end,
come ruin or rapture, all that matters is TRUTH.
Be aware that many sometimes very long and often multileveled
supplementary notes and/or digressions are embedded throughout this
document to both clarify ideas and to act as sidebars to more fully
elucidate a concept, a history, or an opinion. Ideas may seem simple, but
the particulars surrounding them that make them appear simple seldom
are, and to explain a simple position can often illustrate how multifaceted
and truly complex a presumed simple idea can actually be. And as you are
about to discover, I am a glutton for the minutiae of facts; for facts are the
unyielding foundation upon which the legitimacy of any idea stands.
In March of 2012, due to reader insistence and to help clarify some of my
answers to their queries, I finally decided to append a few of the referential
essays I had composed to round out my research into the history that
embodies the underpinning of this document, exploring many of its long
hidden or obfuscated events as I cobbled the core thesis together. One essay
in particular, collating decades of research, explores what possibly could be
driving the corruption that had slowly infested broad fields of the sciences
across the most part of the 20th
Century, which has fomented in some cases a
whimsical “enforced-popular” view that can often be less science and more
pseudoscience; exposing an agenda of general consciousness-management
and the review process (anonymous censorship) that too often neuters an
otherwise useful scientific peer-review system, too frequently discouraging or
rejecting discoveries or insights that directly challenge the status quo; giving
flesh to a long-mysterious cabal who may have propped Einstein up as a
beacon for this new and quasi-religious view, though not as their prime
directive, but simply as a mere cog in the wheels of their ultimate motives.
I add these essays to more effectively illuminate often ignored, though
also often exceptionally relevant background details in order to give
substance to responses I gave to a wide range of reader queries and
arguments. Most submissions were gracious, helpful and insightful,
though some few were quite rabidly vicious, saturated with threat and
puissant vitriol, offering little evidence but say-so for their insistence that I
withdraw this document. These essays have expanded this already densely
detailed discourse by another 80 pages. You can, of course, ignore these
essays if you prefer, though ignoring them might also deny you of some
quite remarkable and pertinent historical enlightenment.

 Page 8
Now, prepare yourself for a Gnostic rollercoaster ride through a vast ocean of
information and history, a great deal of which had in the past been
intentionally obscured. Such knowledge had often been masked in order to
obstruct its otherwise easy access by us: The Curious Masses. Those hiding it
would prefer that we not ever see it, that we not even be aware of it unless we
are first indoctrinated to, and suffer complete dependence upon their own
view, which may also require ignoring facts not favorable to that perspective,
prejudicing us against sometimes more enlightened insights, but to instead
perceive such enlightened insights as if they were the ravings of mad men.
This is not because such guarded knowledge is treacherous to our knowing.
They fear that we might grok it; that we might understand that the house of
cards upon which their tenures and funding and reputations stand may in fact
be tattered, outdated and even irrelevant. Think about it. True scientists do not
squabble over points of view, nor are they ever concerned with maintaining,
never breaking, or even creating consensus. They are concerned only with
facts. They approach these facts logically and with clinical reasoning, ever
testing them, not vomiting distain and ridicule upon them without a moment’s
hesitation. A scientist doing such should immediately be marked as suspect.
They impose their beliefs on us by boldly declaring them as though these
beliefs were definitive answers to the mysteries of our Universe, and impress
us by lining up accomplices or even naive lapdogs that boast impressive-
sounding alphabet titles who all solemnly intone accord with sober reverence.
In defense and without hesitation they will even scold us and chide us as if we
were misbehaved children if we but give voice to the slightest of doubt.
In that we should awaken to the truth of the matter: that they are so
damned afraid that we will otherwise become emboldened enough to once
more be the independent and original thinkers that our ancient ancestors
were, who were not the dumber-than-a-rock knuckle-dragging brutes we
have for far too long been told that they were, empowering us to challenge
their methods with intelligent intuition, insight and reason, and extricate
the stranglehold they otherwise grip on the throat of our thinking, thus
setting free the greater edification of our wisdom.
—David Ross Goben
NOTE: For a well-written perspective on how counter-intuitive thinking, censorship,
and academic blacklisting has corrupted many fields of science, see the book
“AGAINST THE TIDE – A Critical Review by Scientists of How Physics and
Astronomy Get Done” by editors Martín López Corredoira & Carlos Castro
Perelman, available at www.archivefreedom.org. From this site you can access the 13-
chapter free PDF version or order the 14-chapter hard-bound book. If you value
academic freedom and find academic blacklisting, scientific censorship and
repression repulsive, be sure to read this book and pass it on to everyone you know.

 Page 9
Abstract.
Since their initial proposals, gathered evidence has only reinforced the
Electric Universe and the Expansion Tectonics theories. In spite of this, each
time additional evidence for either is reported, or yet another of a fast-
growing body of scientists, especially among those of important and augustly
respected note, dares to declare favor for one or the other, select advocates for
presumed “standard” theories pop up like South African meerkats, as if
alerted to an impending threat, and respond with typically scripted salvos of
protest, too frequently droning the same old and practiced slogan-laced retorts
like Gregorian Chants, or even resort to ad hominem attacks if this tactic fails,
questioning their character but not the actual science, often in an attempt to
deflect the expected reactionary calls for the attackers themselves to in turn
defend their own positions, as if their need to deny the public’s access to, or
worse, their acceptance of opposing ideas was a matter of personal or
professional survival. It might be no wonder. In these last few decades,
tenures, funding and reputations have often been decided upon which ideas,
real or imagined, are accepted by those providing their support and funding.
The Electric Universe (also known as the Plasma-Based Universe) is a
theory proposing, just as in all biological, planetary and extra-planetary
venues, such as being reflected in comet comas, solar activity and in
spectacular galactic displays, that the entire Universe is structurally bound
by electricity through simple and logical demonstrable applications of
electrodynamics and circuit theory, not by a convoluted, confused and
often self-defeating application of gravity. This proposal is accentuated by
the fact that 99.99% of all detected matter in the Universe is highly
energetic electrified plasma. The remaining 0.01% is composed of 90%
Hydrogen, 10% Helium, and but trace amounts of all other elements.
Electricity, which, as stated above, is active in and affects at least 99.99%
of all known matter, is a force that is 39 orders of magnitude, or a
thousand billion billion billion billion times more attractive between
physical or particulate bodies than gravity. Unlike electricity, which has
infinite range, gravity instead fails entirely at the square of the distance
between acceleration-balanced bodies, being famously the weakest force
known to science, and often referred to as being infinitely weak. Further,
because of electricity’s tremendous force of attraction, a plasma-based
universe has absolutely no need of the yet unconfirmed mathematical
inventions of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, singularities, or any
other of an ever-expanding list of unverified and untested, but frequently
interdependent conjectures that, sadly, must often be simply assumed to be
fact just to prop up the now precariously faltering gravity-based model.

 Page 10
Expansion Tectonics proposes that the Earth and other celestial bodies
expand, such as the Moon and Mars, and demonstrate this by observed,
analyzed, and measured geological evidence. It has absolutely no need to
rotate, collide, or subduct continental plates through unproven and now
admittedly impossible convection as is required by Plate Tectonics theory,
but for which there currently exists little to no empirical evidence to
support such exceedingly complex conjectures, and which many of its
supporters also claim the Earth is, perhaps by a cosmic miracle, the sole
host to such incredibly intricate processes in all the solar system.
In spite of little to no empirical evidence supporting a Gravity-Based
Universe or Plate Tectonics, the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics
are slow to acceptance, even though overwhelming evidence exists for them.
The problem is they threaten the currently comfortably-held memes of
scientists that depend more on conjectural mathematical models, or thought
experiments, which deals entirely in hypothetical universes and imagined
scenarios than it does with the actual Universe and physical events. Worse,
observations made of the Universe and of physical events have a historic
tendency to disprove or cripple mathematical models. After all, mathematical
models are supposed to be designed as a result of, and simulate observation
and measurement of the physical universe, not the other way around.
I will compare the evidence between the Electric Universe and the
Gravity-Based Universe, and between Expansion Tectonics and Plate
Tectonics. I will also explore the long-held Prime Matter (Aether) theory
that can strengthen the liquefacting sand upon which Particle Physics now
finds itself, and which also strongly links the Electric Universe with
Expansion Tectonics and makes these two models all the more plausible.
To help you understand much of the Physics described in this document in
layman’s terms, be sure to visit Bruce Harvey’s website at www.bearsoft.co.uk.
Also, regarding Einstein’s assumptions on light, the speed of light and the
Aether, please also read Bruce’s short but very enlightening two-page
document, Einstein’s Errors, at http://bearsoft.co.uk/new_site/phys/rel-errs.pdf.
For interesting perspective, be sure to additionally read A History of the
Theories of Aether and Electricity (From the Age of Descartes to the
Close of the Nineteenth Century) by E. T. Whittaker, Royal Astronomer
of Ireland, 1910 (http://archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich).
—David Ross Goben

 Page 11
ABSTRACT NOTES.
NOTE: Every particle, subatomic or not, expresses an electromagnetic field, though
Relativists insist that Dark Matter does not, at least according to their most popular
but now-faltering Lambda Cold Dark Matter theory, submitting that its particles be 9
times the mass of Protons. Even though cosmologists are having grave issues with
its reliability, they are forced to accept this purely speculated supposition so that the
gravity model can sustain acceptance. This is because they speculate that Dark
Matter generates and is affected by gravity, just like normal matter, but by some
cosmic miracle is conversely electromagnetically neutral, which is a patently ludicrous
conjecture that would have to defy all the laws of physics and electrodynamics, as
this document will clarify. A lone exception, however, is Prime Matter, the base
component of the Aether, a subject we will repeatedly revisit herein, being a positron,
a positively charged 1-electron-weight mass suspended as a plasmoid standing
wave, as such charges are naturally wont to do, and enveloped within an electron
wave shell, as such charges are naturally wont to do. This forces their fields to fold
inwardly and cause this composite wave to be electromagnetically neutral, making it
the most fundamental, collapsed form of matter in the universe, being together less
the width of two electrons (a positron is not an antimatter electron, because antimatter
does not exist, as I will later clarify, which will also demonstrate how unfeasible this idea is,
especially once you realize what relativists do recognize this composite waveform as being).
SUBNOTE: For a critical analysis and structural details of the electron-positron makeup of the
Aether, refer to physicist Allen Rothwarf’s paper, An Aether Model of the Universe, at
http://epola.co.uk/rothwarf/aethermodel.pdf, and other documents at that site. Also see Sid Deutsch’s
related paper at https://siddeutschwrites.wordpress.com/a-physicist-embraces-the-aether/.
NOTE: Hydrogen, the most common element, is electromagnetically bondable. A
Hydrogen Bond, integral to most latticing molecules (liquid crystals), like water surface
cohesion, is an especially powerful dipole-dipole attraction, being the electromagnetic
attractive interaction between polar molecules in which it is bound to a highly
electronegative atom, like Nitrogen, Oxygen or Fluorine. Helium, the second most-
common element, however, is not reactive and does not bond with other elements.
NOTE: Some physicists are now floating the curious idea that gravitation might
be many orders of magnitude weaker than the other fundamental forces in nature
because they think it might be “leaking” into extra dimensions (please refer to
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/aug/24/modified-gravity-fails-at-long-distances#). But
if that is the case, then why do the other forces not likewise leak? The four forces are
the strong interaction force that holds atomic nuclei together; the electromagnetic
force acting between charged particles, having infinite range and producing
electricity, magnetism and light; the weak force responsible for radioactive decay;
and finally the gravitational force. My opinion on this matter, to include their newly
proposed fifth force, is that all these forces will in the end simply be varied
interpretations of a singular, fundamental force of electromagnetic wave energy.
NOTE: Aether (Prime Matter) was a fundamental component of science until Einstein
presented his clearly plagiarized and mathematically abbreviated ideas that ignored
it. The din of thundering protest from the halls of academia railed squarely against his
bold audacity made it clear that Einstein had stepped over the line (not acknowledging
discovery priority alone was usually enough to cripple one’s career). Fortunately for him,
before 1920, such angry shouts from the environs of academia were seldom heard by
the public, for the public would only hear that which the media in turn shared with

 Page 12
them, thus controlling the public voice of the sciences, and the moguls of the media,
paradoxically, were instead lavishing embarrassingly disproportionate praise on their
new bad boy of science, which, as a result, quickly quieted the din of academic
protest to a suppressed murmur, because philanthropists were afterward focusing
their financial support primarily to those who advocated Einstein; the world’s first
superstar. This forced opposing scientists, in need of funding, to talk out of both sides
of their mouths (governments, the military, and business interests were not yet involved in or
issuing grants for scientific research, and until then scientists were entirely dependant upon
private funding, sponsorships, or “day jobs”, which explains why Albert Einstein had been
working as a Swiss patent clerk after he failed to secure a university post, just as did most
other scientists at that time and previous, who did not have funding beyond their own means).
Though the work which Einstein used to write his 1905 paper depended on the
mechanical effects of Aether, acting as a stationary fixed-bed medium, which enables
the function of electromagnetism and is why energy has sinusoidal waveforms,
Einstein seemed to lack a clear understanding of this importance, though I suspect it
is more probable that he was simply presenting his own version of, or spin on
Hendrik Lorentz’s, and especially Jules Henri Poincaré’s physics (refer to the
paper, Poincaré, Einstein and the Relativity: the Surprising Secret, by C. Marshal at
http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf05/ps/c5-1.pdf), featuring only those parts that he agreed
with, but clearly excising those parts that he did not, yet providing no explanation for
why he zeroed out some critically important terms, such as the Aether, except to
perhaps simplify his mathematics, hence emulating Oliver Heaviside’s popular
abbreviating, but flawed methodology (see page 15 for details), even though Lorentz
and Poincaré had to account for it in order for their equations to reflect reality.
Einstein may have rejected Aether if he had accepted the 1881 and 1887 conclusions
of two prominent anti-Aether scientists, Michelson and Morley, who famously tested
for the Earth moving through it. They concluded that their experiments failed to detect
it, though this was primarily due to the experiments being founded upon a grossly
erroneous assumption: that Aether was gaseous when it must actually be very dense
(considering this narrow view, I suspect that the experiments could have been meant to fail,
which would not be the first time studies had been designed to yield a pre-determined result,
especially when funding is at stake. One only has to consider that scientific studies are
supposed to be designed to evaluate a broad range of test platforms to draw a confident
conclusion). Nikola Tesla, conversely, succeeded in his own experiments because he
better understood the need for Aether, as the Firmament, having a crushing density.
SUBNOTE: Despite this gross design flaw in the Michelson-Morley experiments and of their
declaration of failure, the results were not null but did in fact detect the Aether. However, this
reading was, like so much else that does not conform to a study’s sought-for result, brushed aside.
SUBNOTE: Dayton Miller, working with Morley in 1900 and performing far more rigorous
versions of the earlier Michelson-Morley experiments, later known as Dayton Miller’s Ether-Drift
Experiments, confirmed the detection of the Aether. Regarding these experiments, Albert Einstein
said in 1925, “My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result
be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its
current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and
gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory.” In
1928, Miller stated: “The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the
possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect.” Relativists refuse to recognize
such facts of history, like so much else that does not conform to their views. See http://ether-
wind.narod.ru/Miller_1925_Nature/Miller_1925_Nature_ocr.PDF and www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm.
(Regarding inertia and gravitation, also refer to An Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia and
Gravitation by Bernhard Haisch and Alfonso Rueda at www.calphysics.org/articles/zpf_staif98.pdf.)

 Page 13
SUB-SUBNOTE: “Experimentum summus judex” is Latin for “experience the highest judge.”
SUBNOTE: The term Aether was adopted in the 1950s from the elder Ether so to avoid confusion
with chemical ether. Some claim this makes it appear archaic, but this form had in fact already been
in regular use by the likes of Gauss and Maxwell. For me, I prefer Aristotle’s term: Prime Matter,
though most others prefer the more modern term for this most collapsed form of matter: neutrinos.
Relativists will deny the existence of Prime Matter, yet, paradoxically, they will
believe in the spherical reactive waves necessary to explain how a single
electromagnetic event (i.e., a light burst) can express itself in infinite directions
simultaneously, yet not deplete all the energy in the Universe for that one event,
rendering Einstein's concept of Photonic particles laughable, being that they are
clearly the loci of energetic transference, being reactions transferred through a
fixed-bed medium, they failing to explain this transfer medium that must exist so
to transfer its energy in all directions at once, which also defines the speed of
light. It cannot be ordinary, or even Dark Matter because they lack the incredibly
dense and uniform proximity required to effectively billiard-ball these waves of
energy (the elements of this medium must be densely packed enough to instantly affect
and react to each other, which particulate matter or even the imagined density of
presumed Dark Matter cannot do, not to mention being harmonic enough to express the
almost infinite resonances, which would echo through them from any given direction and
at any given time), thus leaving Aether the only viable solution (which is, as we shall
see, only two electron-weights in mass). As we further explore Aether, it will become
clear that for Relativists to admit the Aether exists is to admit their tenants are
built on hills of sand (and this is likely why they must deny it, even as they seek to find a
zero-point energy field that operates exactly like Aether, but one that they hope will not
be based upon electrodynamics, but rather upon their own gravity-based tenants).
NOTE: Electromagnetism is responsible for all interactive phenomena in daily life
but for one small localized exception: gravity. However, it is becoming clear that
what we interpret as a force of gravity will likely end up being just a simple effect
of electromagnetism. For greater elucidation on this increasingly important
matter, see, for example, Physicist Wal Thornhill’s online articles, Electric
Gravity in an Electric Universe (www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs) and
Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System (www.holoscience.com/news.php?
article=q1q6sz2s), or the many articles and research papers found on the late
Harold Aspden’s Energy Science Reports website (www.haroldaspden.com).
NOTE: In the 1905 paper on the Special Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein
(or his wife, Mileva) made the assumption, basing it on the now-discarded, but
then revolutionary idea that the speed of light might be constant, that the widely
accepted concept of Aether did not exist, stating: “The introduction of a
“luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be
developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special
properties...” This, however, in the real world, is not the case and for several very
important reasons, such as the fact that the speed of light is now known not to
be constant (which, paradoxically, like Aether, had been a common notion before the
advent of Einstein), and, going against his photon particle concept operating in an
absolute vacuum, it is also known that light cannot function in an absolute
vacuum because there would be no medium to act as the required stationary
space to transfer any imagined light reaction. Even with all detected matter
present, or even assuming the presence of Dark Matter, there is still not enough

 Page 14
dense matter present to perform this function, and so again enters Aether
(sometimes referred to as the Firmament). The principle reason why Einstein’s
premise is mistaken, however, is because his special and general theories of
relativity actually requires the Aether to exist so that their equations bear
relevance in a real, non-hypothetical universe (see page 16 for more examples).
SUBNOTE: The Special Theory of Relativity was actually named “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
Körper,” meaning “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” As a fascinating trivia note, this
paper in fact describes only one moving body. What may be more fascinating is that it was in fact
coauthored by his first wife, Mileva Einstein-Marity, submitted to Annalen der Physik as “by M.
Einstein-Marity and A. Einstein”, and who, being the first woman theoretical physicist in the world
and who Albert Einstein admitted intellectually exceeded him, actually signed this submission (she,
and her estate have also been the sole recipients of all revenue received for this theory).
Aether, Æther, Ether, Zero-Point-Energy, Neutrinos, or by its ancient names, Prime
Matter and Firmament, previous to science losing sight of it amid Relativity’s use of
paradox as an explanation for otherwise logical, causal events, which results
when the Aether term is ignored, had previously been a critical component
physicists (natural philosophers) used to make sense of the astonishingly
structured dynamics of the universe, making it appear as if it had been
manufactured, this being largely due to the fact that electrodynamics causes
charged particles of matter, which move along magnetic lines like a school of
fish, to behave with an almost intelligent, cooperative cohesiveness. This is why
many scientists will describe plasma displays, like fire or an electric arc, as
behaving like living organisms (but this is an obvious portrayal when you consider
that biological processes work exactly the same way). Plasma, constituting 99.99% of
all detected matter and often referred to as the fourth state of matter, is in fact the
first, fundamental state of matter. As we continue our exploratory quest here, you
may come to the obvious conclusion, as so many others already have, that all
other matter in the universe is derived from this fundamental electrified plasma.
James Clerk Maxwell’s 1873 Theory of Electromagnetism, upon which Hendrik
Lorentz referenced his 1899 theory of relativity (Maxwell's partial differential
equations with the Lorentz force law form the foundation of electrodynamics, optics and
electric circuits), the 1900 theory of relativity of Jules Henri Poincaré (the greatest
mathematician of the time and who first introduced the E=mc2
equation in this same
paper, but which Einstein later assumed credit), and on all of which the 1905 Special
Theory of Relativity is rooted (yet with no credit priorities noted), requires the
existence of the Aether, for without it relativity lacks a foundation. This was
especially understood by Hendrik Lorentz and Jules Henri Poincaré, because
their own previously-written theories of relativity, and to include the General
Relativity theories of Marcel Grossmann (1913) and David Hilbert (1916) was
rooted in the 1892 Lorentz Aether Theory. Interestingly, Special Relativity and
the Lorentz Aether Theory, though philosophically diametric, are quantitatively
identical. This is precisely why Special Relativity was also called, first by Walter
Kaufmann, the Einstein-Lorentz Theory of Relativity, and why I wonder why
Einstein was at first so set against Aether, which Lorentz depended on, even
though Einstein would offer no explanation for what must exist in its place to
function as the energy-transference medium in order to make the function of
electrodynamics possible, and upon which his own theories so heavily depended.

 Page 15
SUBNOTE: Some may find it interesting that the Lorentz Aether Theory, though quantitatively
identical to the Special Theory of Relativity, had used only Newtonian physics to achieve all of its
solutions. In the final analysis, Einstein’s equations are merely a simplification or abbreviation of
the Lorentz methods. However, this simplification was achieved by removing or ignoring critical
terms that not only made the resulting equations easier to work with, but also consequentially made
them express nothing of any substantive meaning because the missing terms were what would have
given them applicable consequence to the real, non-hypothetical universe.
SUBNOTE: Maxwell’s equations require the Aether, for without it electromagnetism is not
possible, he stating that light is a transverse electromagnetic wave moving through a medium,
which is the Aether. Nikola Tesla, of the same mind, wrote, “You’re wrong, Mr. Einstein – ether
does exist!” Most of his revolutionary electric experiments and feats would have failed if it did not.
Einstein’s view may likely be rooted in the experiments of the Anti-Aetherists, Michelson and
Morley, who claimed to have failed to detect Earth moving through it, assuming Aether to be a
gaseous fixed-bed medium. However, they did detect it, shown to be a residual effect that could
only be attributed to the Aether. This despite the fact that they had tested only for it being gaseous
and not in a denser state, but they considered readings that tested for it being gaseous to be weak,
and despite that they were in fact detecting something, they brushed it aside as a negligible effect.
Worse, thanks to a prominent and, for a time, broadly influential scientist, Oliver Heaviside (1850-
1925), Fellow of the Royal Society, electrical engineer, mathematician, and physicist, who had
changed for a time the face of mathematics and science, inspired the mathematical practices of
many for numerous years, who did not like the detailed complexity of solving equations in their
complete forms, decided that by assuming the Aether term to be “non-physical”, or zero, it allowed
for the simplification of the equations and for working with them, making Aether only appear to be
a superfluous bother. But it is not zero, and as such Einstein’s Relativity has clearly rested on a
flawed foundation since then because equations not considering Aether did not balance out or
reflect reality, and ultimately resulted in these discrepancies being explained away by paradox.
Conversely, Testla, a brilliant, obsessively deep thinker, succeeded where Michelson and Morley
failed, realizing that Aether, being interactive, would swirl around the Earth (which would also be
clearly responsible for light bending near such bodies, though they would also have to be massive
enough, like the Sun, in order to exhibit measurable results). He also observed: “When comparing
acoustic speed in the air and the light speed I have drawn a conclusion that ether density is several
thousand times higher than air density. It is not the ether that is aeroform [gaseous] but the
material world is an aeroform to the ether!” He further wrote: “I always based as fact the existence
of mechanical ether in my works and therefore I could achieve positive success.” For disclosure, it
must be noted that Tesla had nothing but contempt for Einstein’s abbreviating brand of physics.
Tesla also believed in taking electricity safely out of the Aether, not causing dangerous radiation by
splitting atoms, which was the frightfully hazardous proposition that Einstein advocated.
Einstein thus discounted that which is fundamentally required for the very feasibility of
the theories he assumed credit for because he had applied a simplified Heaviside-
style spin on them. This view, which Einstein’s advocates even now parrot without
question, has blinded them to imagining any possible link between electromagnetism
and gravity, even though Einstein did nothing to explain the rules for how the force of
gravity operated under his own models; never bothering to explain the one critical
element upon which his theories depended so heavily, but simply left gravity to
somehow be its own explanation, treating it as if it were a common notion, which
would normally require no explanation, but in light of the special attributes he assigns
to it in order to suit the new view asserted by his theories, this forces his concept of
gravity to be regarded as a postulate, which must therefore be thoroughly explained
by the rules of the scientific method, but for which he explained nothing except to
assume that acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable, though even Sir Isaac
Newton famously admitted that he did not understand what constituted gravity.
Newton simply defined principles (laws) under which it appeared to operate.

 Page 16
SUBNOTE: On 5 May 1920, Einstein addressed the University of Leyden (see http://www-
history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html) and admitted Aether was essential if his version
of Relativity was to work. Yet, his view of the Aether differs from Lorentz-Poincaré in that he
removed its mechanical effects, though I think this could cause electrodynamic lines of force to
chaotically warp. Also refer to “Why did Einstein Come Back to the Ether?” Apeiron Vol 8 No.3,
July 2001 by Galina Granek (http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO3PDF/V08N3GRF.PDF).
Given that Einstein’s physics requires of gravity an immense preponderance of proof,
so much so that gravity must be treated as a postulate, it should obligate him to
succinctly describe the substantial special assumptions he heaps onto it. Indeed, the
whole purpose of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity was to in fact answer that
fundamental question, though it did not actually do so. Is it, as so many of Relativity’s
most devoted defenders declare, through the yet-undetected and purely hypothetical
massless graviton, a presumed spin-2 boson force carrier, though if you do the math
it would actually end up proving absolutely nothing about Relativity, or is it instead
through the tremendously more powerful forces of electromagnetism, such as
through a proposed process of radially-oriented electrostatic dipoles inside an atom’s
protons, neutrons and electrons, as discussed in the previously listed links for Wal
Thornhill, which, in the end, would actually render Relativity unnecessary?
SUBNOTE: As stated before, the second paragraph of the 1905 Einstein submission notes: “The
introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be
developed will not require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special properties...”
I am just as puzzled as Nikola Tesla that Einstein apparently could not grok such a simple process,
but instead chose to turn such logical causal events into a confusion of paradox.
For example, according to Einstein and an exacting interpretation of his view on relative motion
between a stationary observer and a moving object, even though the observer will seem to see that
the moving object’s clock slows, that its ruler contracts, and its mass increases, Einstein’s first
principle, that the laws of physics do not change, would dictate that this is only a relativistic
illusion to the eyes of a stationary observer, meaning that the clock did not actually slow, its ruler
did not actually contract, and its mass did not actually increase, reflecting that seen through the
eyes of the moving object, where these effects would go unnoticed because its local space appears
to it as being relatively stationary. However, Einstein then spends a great deal of time throughout
the remaining course of this 31-page treatise trying to paradoxically prove that they will do exactly
that, that the faster one travels the slower its time will run, relative distance will decrease, and its
mass will increase, but will still go unnoticed by the moving object, which is exactly the effects we
would find in a Newtonian-based Lorentz-Poincaré universe, but without all the clutter of
relativistic paradoxes that invariably crop up due to abbreviated equations.
Consider the simple example of placing two clocks side by side, synchronizing them, and then
carefully moving one, the other, or both in any direction or distance or speed. The simple act of
moving them actually causes synchronization errors. This is not a relativistic act that results from a
stationary observer and a moving clock where the clock only appears to become unsynchronized to
the eyes of the observer. The clocks actually become unsynchronized! These are actual events. The
simple act of moving them through space affects them. Gravitation is not a contributing factor to
this effect because it is effectively infinitely weak and has no measurable or detectable effect on
them. According to Lorentz, Poincaré, et al., this can only be due to it moving through a stationary
force that they referred to as the Aether, which is the required stationary medium that enables the
very function of electrodynamics itself, but which Einstein strangely rejected until after 1916,
apparently simply for reasons of mathematical expediency, being tied to a Newtonian universe that
did not account for the newly-discovered and overpowering effects of its electrical nature, which
was the path science was actually shifting focus to when Einstein burst onto the scene and changed
it, forcing them to shift their focus once again so to secure much-needed funding for their work.

 Page 17
What is really puzzling me is that any college physics student can in fact reason out every
conclusion that Einstein makes in his paper and in his later general theory, but using strictly
Newtonian methods (but to do so would also highlight very interesting glaring points (gaps, really,
because the requisite points are actually missing) that knowledgeable Relativists would not want
you to be aware of. I will leave this to you; to be your own personal path to discovery, though if
you do not apply too much thought to it, you would realize I have already given you the answers).
And this is fully one half of the principles that defines his premise for Special Relativity, ignoring
for a moment the special properties of gravity postulate that he himself chose to ignore. The other
half, of course, is simply, as also stated in the second paragraph of his paper, “that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body.” Considering that the speed of light is now known to be variable, this in
accordance to the level of electromagnetic interference, either as waves or as mass objects in its
path (contrary to popular presumption, it is actually impossible for light to function in an absolute
vacuum, just as it is actually impossible for an absolute vacuum to even exist, which would, if you
really think about it, also make black holes impossible), ignoring that Prime Matter (Aether) might
in fact determine the path and speed of light by the rate and method by which it is able to convey
the energy of a standing wave source (an electromagnetic event) outwardly in infinite directions
through a acutely efficient and perfectly balanced transference process. Considering that his first
principle actually rests on this second principle being true, which it is not, I think that the whole of
his premise has in fact crumbled.
The idea that gravity is even remotely able to superiorly affect electrical forces in any meaningful
manner whatsoever, when electrical forces are an astounding 39 orders of magnitude, or a thousand
billion billion billion billion times more powerful than gravity, which is known to be at work in at
least 99.99% of all detected matter in the Universe, simply leaves me in bewildered amazement that
so many people, and most especially relativist scientists, will blindly accept it, perhaps blinded by
their centuries-old gravity-only memes, preventing them from coming to grips and recognizing the
pervasively electrically active universe that all their instruments report detecting. This is because
gravity’s effect on electromagnetism is absolutely laughable, affecting it no more than a gnat
impacting on Mount Everest. This is like claiming that a drifting dandelion seed actually stirs the
atmospheric forces and creates the wind that carries it adrift. To be fair, I must admit that Einstein
and cosmologists in general at that time believed that electric and magnetic fields could not exist on
their own but required matter as a charge-carrier. However, we have known now for numerous
decades that this is not the case, and that it is in fact the other way around, though Relativists will
deny this because, if this point of incontrovertible fact was generally accepted by the public, it
could very well rip the foundations of Special and General Relativity asunder.
And this is on top of the fact that Newtonian Physics can easily express everything that Relativity
only claims is Einstein’s “new” type of physics. Actually, if you look closely at Einstein’s brand of
Relativity, there is no new type of physics to be found within it, because all the “new stuff” is
comprised entirely of an enormous glut of imagined presumptions that have never been tested or
verified, and of compounding, interdependent complex fantasies that have no foundation in
empirical fact, all forced to be imagined to fill in the gaps between observed physical reality and
the abbreviated mathematical models that Einstein proposed, and all forming the very foundations
of the spin-off fields of Quantum Physics and Particle Physics, which are both acutely dependant
upon the paradoxes introduced by the shortcuts Einstein took in Relativity. In the final analysis,
however, the reason for all this paradoxical complexity and mounting presumptions is based
entirely upon a foundation of belief that electricity does not saturate the whole of the universe,
which it most certainly does, being proven so more and more solidly with each new discovery,
making the idea of a gravity-based universe laughable, were it not for the sobering fact that so
much tenure and funding and reputations are now bound to Einstein’s brand of Relativity being true
that its supporters cannot afford to disavow a belief in a gravity-only universe that is lacking in
significant and much more powerful universal electromagnetic effects.

 Page 18
FINAL NOTE: When discussing pervasive electromagnetic effects observed in galaxies,
the Sun, solar heliopause, planets, comets, asteroids (especially when asteroids start
exhibiting electromagnetic effects and are redesignated as comets), etc., Relativist physicists
invariably resort to the standard fallback position of embarking on explanations involving
magnetic merging and reconnection of magnetic field lines. That would be a really good time to
remind them that there is no such thing as “magnetic merging” or “reconnection” of
magnetic field lines in the real world. Refer to www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/06/16/jupiter-and-
the-sun and http://electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.pdf.

 Page 19
Introduction.
Imagine living in a Universe bound by
Electricity rather than Gravity, and on an Earth
that had once been much smaller 700 million
years ago, along with a likewise smaller Moon,
and both had managed to grow by scientifically
feasible means beyond asteroid and comet
accretion. Such a vision might strike one as
utter fantasy and seem far beyond reason if we
blindly pay heed to the proclamations solemnly
chanted by those claiming to be the high priests
of science. I must confess I had once also nodded obedient accord to their
incessant incantations about what we must venerate as Scientific Truth and
what we must disdain and ridicule as Heretical Anathema, I naively
assuming their credentials put them into positions of superior privileged
knowledge that would absolutely safeguard them from the bane of reproof.
But in 1987, as I contemplated this while walking along the Cape Cod
National Seashore, I had an epiphany that is so obvious now: I realized
that their sacrosanct theories were not long ago soundly declared utter
fantasy and far beyond reason. Indeed, the idea of an Electric Universe
and Expansion Tectonics can only appear to be outside the realm of reason
if we consciously ignore the massive catalogs of empirical evidence that
clearly verifies them, and at the same time to not recognize the utter want
of empirical evidence necessary to support two of the currently favored
icons of science; a Gravity-Based Universe and Plate Tectonics.
NOTE: One of the common fallacies that skeptics of
Expansion Tectonics assume is that the theory
supposes that the continental crust itself was likewise
smaller, and that everything grew, from fossils to rocks,
along with the oceanic basins (which have been
geologically proven to be a maximum of only 280 million
years old) as the Earth expanded, but this is simply a
gross, naive misunderstanding of the theory.
Expansion Tectonics posits that the Earth’s continental
crusts were not smaller, but were of their present size,
save for areas of clearly obvious crustal stretching and
water-filled cracking, such as is abundantly evident in
The Great Lakes and Canada (the granite crust is
nominally plastic), because continental “plates” are
physically incapable of drifting or twisting (explained on
page 26). Only the much younger ocean beds and sea beds could possibly
The Crab Nebula pulsates visibly, and
exactly like a simple relaxation oscillator.
Stills from a Neal Adam’s video at
www.youtube.com/user/nealadamsdotcom.

 Page 20
expand, but even then only at mid-oceanic expansion ridges, which were initially
but narrow cracks in the stretching primordial planetary crust. As these torn rills
slowly expanded, molten basalt filled them, quickly hardening beneath the cool
saline water that naturally drained into them from the shallow seas on the higher,
original crust, this water initially covering the entire planet. This crustal cracking
and lower-crust spreading can also clearly be seen on the surface of the Moon,
Mars, Europa, Ganymede, and other bodies that we can examine, every one of
them showing a higher, primordial crust and a newer, expanded lower crust.
Note further, however, that this can only be fully
observed in the southern hemisphere of Mars,
because the original crust of its northern hemisphere,
nearly six miles deep, appears to have been almost
completely excavated away, as many scientists have
remarked and as you can clearly see for yourself in
the elevation map to the right, and not simply due to
otherwise natural tectonic spreading, where on Mars
the original crust simply remained nominally intact
within the southern hemisphere (Mar’s northern hemisphere reminds me of the broad
Pacific Ocean here on Earth, yet the extreme height variation is simply far too significant to
be the work of normal tectonic spreading alone. Also, as you can later surmise, Venus could
scour Mars' northern hemisphere for eons when it once rested in close proximity over Mars'
northern axis). Much of this scoured material was chaotically scattered across the
Mars' surface as countless, often titanic boulders. If ancient
legends are true, having been recorded in sacred texts on every
inhabited continent, this destruction had been the work of the
planet Venus, when, during an apparent solar upheaval, for a time
it broke free of its orbit and roamed the heavens as a great and
terrible comet (its comet-like characteristics persist even today) with a
waving coronal mane like a dragon, breathing electrical interplanetary thunderbolts,
striking cataclysmic destruction across Mars and Earth, and instilled such intense,
primordial fear that into the 21st
Century people still had an instinctive fear of comets.
SUBNOTE: It is evident by satellite inspection that much of Mars’ northern hemisphere had been
stripped away from its surface, even if we accept (and I do) that a mile or two of this much lower six
mile elevation is due to tectonic spreading (tectonic spreading appears to focus, if it can, at areas of long
electrical exposure, such as the Moon’s Earth-side). Even accepting this, it can still explain the presence
of comets and the Asteroid Belt. In counterpoint, ancient Sumerian legends claim the Hammered Out
Bracelet (the Asteroid Belt) formed when a moon from a rogue planet collided with an ancient planet
they called Rahab, whose upper half formed the asteroids and its lower half reformed into Earth. Yet,
considering that the material strewn across Mars does not remotely constitute the many-miles deep mass
lost from its northern hemisphere, it is likely that it contributed a respectable percentage of the asteroids,
comets and meteors, and why scientists have in fact found an inordinate number of Martian meteorites
spread across the Earth (even Phobos, the larger of Mars’ two moons, is believed to have formed from
ejected Martian mass. The other moon, Deimos, long thought a captured asteroid, cannot be explained
by its smooth equatorial-plane orbit, but may be a mountain of upper crust ejected from Mars).
Many studying primeval world-wide legends note the ancients claim
Saturn, or Helios as the Greeks called it, or Latin Sol (see the SUB-
SUBNOTE below), was once not the pin-point of light we see today,
but it was once a huge glowing orb dominating their northern sky (we
will later revisit these ancient legends). They said Venus and Mars
were once large, clearly visible objects in the sky, these ancient legends
holding that Earth, Mars, Venus and Saturn were once in constant close
Elevation-colorized Cartesian map of Mars.
Symbols of an Alien Sky, Documentary
viewable at www.thunderbolts.info.

 Page 21
and aligned proximity (Collinear or LaGrange orbits?) in a primordial “Golden Age”, before catastrophe
drove Mankind to the safety of caves as civilization was eradicated by cosmic thunderbolts. Assuming
ancient Modern Man, who was as intelligent, inquisitive and mentally adept as we are today (and this
was true even 200,000 years ago), were accurately reporting this (though this would be like trying to
convince people from thousands of years hence that amazing events we witness today would make any
sort of sense to them), they still did not report the presence of ringed discs around Saturn, or even the
presence of Jupiter, until after the breakup, which was said to be concealed beyond Saturn. It is possible
that Saturn had no rings until recently; some astronomers concluding that Saturn’s rings are young, being
only a few thousand years old, as is evidenced by the rate at which they are now fading. To accept this,
one must consider that a part of Mars’ missing mass, which legends say was raked by fierce thunderbolts
hurled from a warring Venus (in its “terrible aspect” as Medusa), might possibly comprise a part of the
mass of Saturn’s young rings before the planets finally settled into their present stable orbits. In the spirit
of such reported ancient cosmic activity, Saturn’s rings could also be a result of Venus’ close encounters
with the gas giant and ripping streams of Saturn’s own atmosphere into orbit. Or, if ancient legends are
really true of Saturn once having been an actual star (a brown dwarf), when the superior electric field of
the Sun shunted Saturn’s (and Jupiter’s) galactic electrical connection after the Saturn/Jupiter binary
system perhaps crossed its heliopause, mass would have ejected equatorially as its fires flashed out.
SUB-SUBNOTE: The Greeks named Saturn Cronos; the original ruler of Heaven. However, their term for
Sun, Helios, did not refer to our present Sun, but instead it specifically referred to their Original Sun; Saturn.
With knowledge comes power. With education, an open mind, and
original thought comes reason and discovery.
The accompanying letters will explore this data and try to clarify the many
arguments that must be made within this document, such as the following:
Did you know that the so-called “soundly proven” Gravity-Based Universe is
no such thing, its alleged “proof” consisting primarily of mathematical
models and an ever-growing list of presumptions, none of which is based on
empirical data, but where you must instead blindly accept some of these often
fantastic ideas as if they were fact, all in order to explain how gravity-based
Universes might possibly work, such as the speculated but yet to be
confirmed suppositions of black holes, black hole ejections, dark matter, dark
energy, gravitons, or the rapid rotation of pulsars? Did you know that
neutron stars, which had been invented to justify pulsars, actually cannot
possibly exist (see my note on page 38)? Did you know that antimatter cannot
be proven, contrary to loud claims made by CERN and sensationalized in
Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons (see my note below)? Nor can the much-
revered Big Bang theory or singularities (covered variously later). Did you
know that the Thermonuclear Model of the Sun can be soundly dismantled
(see page 62)? Throw into that mix of presumptions six types of quarks (sub-
electronic particles mathematically speculated to carry either a 2/3 or 1/3
electron volt as positive or negative), six types of anti-quarks, six types of
leptons (though including the electron), thirteen gauge boson force carriers
(“virtual particles” that particle physics invented to carry the interactions of
nature that exist only as mathematical quantities), and a plethora of other
supposed particles and concepts, such as the Higgs Mechanism, or the
massive Higgs Boson particle that they desperately hope actually exists, for
without it the present constructs of Particle Physics might begin unraveling.

 Page 22
NOTE: July 2012. Some initially published reports claimed that CERN had found the
Higgs Boson. However, this is not what CERN reported. They believe that they have only
come closer to finding it. They reported that when 2 electrons collide with a proton at
hyper speeds, after millionths of a second this “mystery particle” returned back into (what
else?) 2 electrons and a proton (actually, Particle Physics imagines the Higgs Boson to be 9
times the mass of a proton, or 16,560 times the mass of an electron). What this sounds to me to
be is more like a non-standard and hence, highly unstable quasi-neutron. A Neutron has
only 2 electron weights more mass than a proton, because it is a proton that has managed
to capture a neutrally charged mass twice that of an electron (I submit a single Prime
Matter waveform, which is a readily available neutrally-charged 2-electron-weight mass), along
with an additionally required companion proton for structural integrity stability and also to
help it assume its neutral charge state, otherwise the neutron, which is highly unstable
without a companion proton, would quickly shuck off the extra 2-electron-weight waveform
and be restored to a much more stable proton. I feel that this neutral mass will complete a
proton’s attraction field (I also think that, ideally, a proton would actually require a neutrally-
charged mass of but 1 electron weight to manage this, though such a waveform is fortunately not
available, as otherwise matter as we presently know it would never be able to exist), and it in turn,
now acting as if it were an over-sized neutral (Prime Matter) waveform, will try to complete
another proton’s attraction field, though understandably not perfectly, like trying to park a
limousine in a sub-compact car parking space, but nonetheless keeping the normally
unstable neutron relatively stable. Yet, because this nucleus’ attraction field is no longer
more evenly charged, this may also be why some atoms are able to exchange their outer-
most electrons relatively easily, thus rendering them more electrically conductive.
NOTE: Antimatter is not proven. It is a presumption based upon Dmitri Skobeltsyn’s 1929
detection of positrons (positively charged “electrons”), a subsequent discovery of them in
1932 by Carl D. Anderson, and these discoveries being applied to a 1928 speculation on
antimatter by Paul Dirac. Note that a single positron is ejected from the core of a
dismantled proton, though anti-protons have never been detected, and most everyone
agrees they cannot exist. As you will learn while we excavate deeper into Prime Matter,
positrons are not anti-electrons, but they will actually complement electrons, and together
they can more easily define the fundamental state of Matter. The fact that tremendous
energy is released when a positron and electron combine is normal and expected, being
that the energy that held them apart is released. This will be discussed in more detail later.
All the often mind-boggling concepts posited by Relativists to balance
their mathematical models are yet to be verified, being justified only by
creative mathematical gymnastics, which are often, though surely not
intentionally, contaminated by incorrect assumptions, but they cannot yet
be proven through laboratory confirmation as can an Electric Universe
through the application of robust, repeatable Plasma Physics experiments.
Sadly, mathematical models not founded upon observation or empirical data
can be easily contorted to “prove” almost anything, and accidentally
embedded errors can often take decades to realize, making it more
mythematical than being reflective of any reality. Albert Einstein even
cautioned physicists about this. I like quoting Geoff Haselhurst’s
interpretation of Einstein’s effort: “Mathematics does not describe reality,
just its quantities.” To wit, Einstein mused in 1920, “As far as the laws of
mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are
certain, they do not refer to reality.”

 Page 23
One reason Albert Einstein, who put all his faith in purely mathematical
endeavors, which he called thought experiments, disliked laboratory
experiments because they often disproved his mathematical conjectures, as
his early attempts at experiments proved. Thus, he chose to pursue
exclusive mathematical speculation. Though a supremely arrogant self-
promoter, which may surprise many who have been lulled by his publicly
advertised humility, Einstein nonetheless said he was not averse to being
wrong, and he even argued against ideas some incorrectly extrapolated
from theories he proposed, often through mistakes in interpretation.
The adherents to modern Relativism claim that if you do not fully
understand their exceedingly complex and often contradictory “laws” then
you are simply too stupid to argue against them, but that premise is simply
too stupid in and of itself. When science becomes a realm of pure
mathematics and not of observation, evaluation and verification, then
science ceases to be science, but rather it becomes a make-believe
playground of mythematics where anything might be provable if but given
the optimal obfuscating complexity in the absence of empirical data.
In fact, the actual meticulously documented evidence that has been
amassed by eminent data-gathering agencies, such as NASA, plus by the
concise observations of astronomers, astrophysicists and others, cannot yet
verify their own “established” gravity-based theories, even though the
ambassadors for these theories (and mind you, they are simply theories),
perhaps in a state of self-righteous or closed-minded determination,
maintain that it does, sometimes grating against their very own evidence.
Worse, we are expected to accept their conclusions without protest upon
the premise that argument equals ignorance, even when all data clearly
points to a simpler and more logical Universe bound by Electricity. But
this massive body of rock-solid evidence supporting a plasma-based
universe has been somehow deemed unimportant by relativist science, all
because it does not support theories they piously assume to be fact, and so
you will hear them argue that there may be yet one more calculation that
must be made, or one more particle that must be invented and named to
truss up support for their own arrogant view of the universe.
How embarrassing it must be for these scientists to spend billions of our
tax dollars in efforts to verify their pet theories, when the returned data
regularly flatly denies them, instead favoring ideas that they might
condemn as heretical. News articles normally report that “they are
mystified by the results” and/or “they must go back to the drawing board”,
whereupon they are forced, typically by a need to remain relevant, to

 Page 24
invent a brand new subatomic particle or property or principle, and backed
up by all sorts of complex mythematical formulae in order to “prove”
something that might not actually be provable, though they will accept it
and defend it with unrelenting fervor if it can be used to prop up their own
revered suppositions (for example, just look at the spaghetti mess that
Particle Physics is now finding itself in).
Consider the recent detailed examination of comets and asteroids by these
agencies have resulted in nothing but impasses for their views because this
empirical data did not support expectations. Indeed, this data actually
disproved that comets were the loosely packed dirty snowballs they had
for so long proclaimed them to be. Besides, such a supposition makes little
sense to anyone with just a nodding understanding of astrophysics.
Starting with the many probes sent to Halley’s Comet by the Soviets, ESA
and Japan in 1986, and more remarkably the Deep Impact probe to comet
Temple I in 2005, the gathered evidence mystified them because none of
their theories or predictions was verified by it. However, everything was
not only expected, but was in fact predicted by Wal Thornhill, an
Australian physicist and a protagonist for the Electric Universe
(www.holoscience.com), when observing these events based on a model of
electrodynamics and circuit theory (but not on the notion of electrostatics,
which many detractors of the Electric Universe naively surmise).
NOTE: The Dirty Snowball theory was proposed in 1950 by Astronomer Fred
L. Whipple. At that time, scientists mistakenly believed electric and magnetic
fields could not exist without the presence of sufficient matter as a charge-carrier,
explaining why even now cosmologists will ignore the immense electric currents
required to generate and maintain cosmic magnetic fields, and so scientists
believed a comet to be too small to store sufficient energy to generate this effect,
not yet understanding how the Sun is able to charge it. Hence, in order to explain
a comet’s massive coma and tail on what they then believed to be an electrically
neutral object, he developed the supposition that perhaps they were made up of
water and gas jets. As this idea slowly jelled to become the consensus “standard
model”, it was realized that icy comets would very rapidly degrade and quickly
run out of “fuel”. Hence, it had to further be assumed that the solar system must
therefore periodically re-supply them, so Dutch Astronomer Jan Oort proposed
that a vast hoard of icy objects (the Oort Cloud) might encase the solar system
that was a thousand times more distant from the Sun than Pluto. This idea
appeared a plausible explanation of these presumed icy comets in light of the
Solar Nebula theory, which assumed the solar system formed from a collapsed
gas cloud, where lighter elements, such as water, stayed on the outside (an idea
still debated in academia because the faltering but still-supported Thermonuclear Model
of the Sun requires lighter elements to be on the inside). In 1992, because all known
new objects orbited the solar system much closer than the Oort Cloud, the Kuiper
Belt was proposed, which assumed a loose disc of left-over planetary material

 Page 25
from the orbit of Neptune out to 30 A.U. (1 Astronomical Unit = 1 Earth distance
from the center of the Sun), from which all short-term comets were assumed to
arrive. The 2004 Stardust mission to Comet Wild 2 spelled the end of the Oort
Cloud, because the comet dust collected and returned to Earth could not possibly
have formed in the presumed Oort zone. For more details, see the video “When
Planets Gave Birth to Comets” at https://youtu.be/Iky2k8MtMno.
SUBNOTE: It was also thought icy comets were necessary to explain the presence of water on
Earth and maybe Jupiter’s moon Europa, but this, if you really think about it, that comets could
somehow miss all the other planetoids and collide exclusively with these two bodies, is ridiculous.
SUBNOTE: Fred L. Whipple (1906-2004), who’s career in astronomy spanned 70 years,
confirmed in 1931 that meteors originated within the solar system, not from interstellar space.
Considering that 99.99% of all detected matter in the Universe is highly
energetic electrified plasma and that electricity is 1039
times more
powerful than gravity, it is hard to understand why establishment science
still claims the effects of the Universe’s pervasive electrical nature is nil
when weighed against the weak, truly pathetic forces of gravity, when the
entire universe is literally crackling with electricity. In comparison, the
entire force of Earth’s gravity can hold a steel ball bearing to the ground,
yet a child’s toy magnet, which was polarized (magnetized) by a weak
electric field, and against all that force of gravity, can easily pick it up.
NOTE: 100% of all detected matter we see in the universe ideally constitutes
only about 1% of all matter that exists, where 99% of this universal bounty, which
must fully and uniformly saturate all of space with an unbelievably crushing
density so that light wave propagation is even possible, is, by the thinking of an
ever-growing number of scientists, Prime Matter, which is a simple wave
structure comprised of a single electron wrapped around a single positron, which
naturally forces their charge fields to fold inwardly, and thus rendering them
electromagnetically neutral (note further, and as will be later explained, this should
not be confused with the supposition of Dark Matter). It makes a lead brick seem like
a wisp of air, but each Prime Matter element is so minute that it can pass through
the vast space within an atom's shell with little to no effect or notice.
NOTE: In their book, The Electric Universe, Wal Thornhill and David Talbott
reported that Hannes Alfvén, who won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1970 for his
fundamental discoveries in Magnetohydrodynamics (he is the acknowledged founder
of the study), erroneously theorized early in his career that magnetic fields
appeared “frozen-in” to superconducting plasma, isolating such electrical
processes, because it was assumed sufficient matter needed to be present to act
as a charge-carrier so that electric and magnetic fields could exist, although this
has been proven not only to be wrong, but it was in fact the other way around,
which makes electric and magnetic fields essential for understanding the orderly
make-up of the Universe. Even so, this mistaken and long-superseded premise
still underpins cosmology’s modern interpretation of magnetism in space,
somehow giving them permission to ignore the unimaginably immense electric
currents required to generate and maintain cosmic magnetic fields, regardless that
their assumption has been disproved, in addition to their wrongly assuming that

 Page 26
electrodynamics and fluid dynamics work alike, even though, due to the presence
of its charged particles in powerful electromagnetic fields, cosmic plasma
behaves entirely unlike neutral gases. Alfvén, later realizing his early theory was
monumentally shortsighted because it was discovered that matter was not
required to act as a charge-carrier but that plasma itself acted as that carrier,
used the occasion of receiving the Nobel Prize to plead with scientists to ignore
his earlier mistaken work. He said that magnetic fields are only one component of
plasma science. The electric currents that generate magnetic fields must not be
overlooked, and attempts to model space plasma in the absence of electric currents and
circuits will set astronomy and astrophysics on a course toward crisis.
SUBNOTE: Space has been proven not to be electrically neutral, as is evident by the display of the
Aurora Borealis, resulting from electrical discharges from the Sun, specifically electrically charged
particles that move along magnetic lines. Further, magnetic lines are created only by electric
currents, and electric currents are required to sustain them. Even so, for some reason many
scientists ignore this proven evidence because it simply is not conducive to their own opinions that,
beyond all logical reasoning, assume that gravity is somehow the superior affecting force.
NOTE: Another reason classical cosmology ignores Plasma is that the Big Bang
assumes that there was not enough energy in the Universe to have created and
maintained significant numbers of “loose” ions and electrons through ionization of
atoms, which means that Plasma should not be saturating the universe, even
though it does, being that Plasma constitutes 99.99% of all detected matter. Yet,
mainstream science will brush aside this fact because it does not conform to their
theories. The Big Bang assumes charged particles of electrons and ions formed
first (which strangely sounds like Plasma to me). Next, all these protons and
electrons later combined to form primordial atoms. Later, some of these
primordial atoms ionized (separated and became charged particles) to form the
Plasma we have today. Given that premise, it can easily be argued that a
colossal amount of energy would naturally be ejected when charged ions
(Plasma) and electrons combined into atoms, and their dispersed energy would in
fact be readily available to re-ionize massive quantities of atoms, rendering Big
Bang’s argument totally groundless. Even so, it makes much more sense that
most of these free electrons and ions did not initially form atoms in the first place,
but rather they simply remained in their initial, primordial Plasma state.
Likewise, physical geological evidence does not support Plate Tectonics,
which posits that an original super-continent named Pangaea once existed on
one side of an Earth that was about the same size as now, later breaking up
and twisting in all manner of directions, sliding about on deep viscous mantle
through oceanic crust, often going against the laws of hydrodynamics and
geophysics, and resulting in its present formation. And this is on top of the
fact that the oceanic basalt the upper-elevation granite continental plates are
supposedly twisting around in and plowing through is significantly denser
than the continental crust, making such drifting and twisting impossible, and
also leaving absolutely no sign whatsoever that such dramatic events ever
took place, which would have actually etched permanent fingerprints within
the dense basalt of those lower-elevation basins, which consist entirely of
protruded magma, wholly unlike the granite of the higher, continental plates.

 Page 27
Granted, South America looks like it was once butted up against Africa,
and North America against Eurasia. And that is because they did, and
geological evidence, such as the Mid-Atlantic Expansion Ridge, supports
that, but not in the manner that Plate Tectonics advocates surmise, simply
because there is more than this single ridge but many mid-ocean
expansion ridges across the whole planet, making the world look like the
outer surface of a geode stone that cracks and fills those cracks with
silicates as its insides crystallize and grow. Besides, if continents actually
did drift about on a supposed viscous, liquid mantle, fluid dynamics would
force continents to sink in order to maintain equilibrium with an oceanic
basalt crust that is half as thick as the original granite crust of the planet.
However, this so-called soft, fluid mantle is in fact twice as dense as the
granite of the continental crust, which makes such willy-nilly continental
drifting physically impossible.
Further, this supposed original Pangaea Super-Continent in a world ocean
can actually be demonstrated to be physically unworkable using simple
laws of hydrodynamics. Put simply, if Pangaea did in fact exist, the central
half of Pangaea would have had to have been completely submerged
beneath the world ocean, and there would also have been a large swath of
exposed ocean bottom, about the size of that which had sunk on Pangaea,
but on the exact opposite side of the planet (this explanation will be
elaborated on and more succinctly explained on page 54).
In contrast, actual geological evidence does support an expanding Earth
through meticulous satellite and ground-based measurements of its slowly
expanding diameter that cannot be attributed to the much slower accretion
of asteroids, comets, and space dust, forcing periodic GPS (Global
Positioning Satellite) data updates, where this GPS data clearly shows that
every single continent is moving away from every other continent and that
the surface area of every single ocean is also increasing, and which can be
translated to account for an expanding Moon, Mars, and everything else,
to include galaxies, galactic clusters, and the progenitors of all other
celestial bodies, like quasars (quasi-stellar objects).
NOTE: In August 2011 NASA again declared the Earth is not expanding (see
www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-254), even though their data flatly states
otherwise. This is an annual event. But you must understand their need to stay in
good graces with the relativists and so continue to be heralded as the solid
bastion of science, and as such they are forced to support Plate Tectonics as a
theory that provides a model for a static-sized Earth, even if verified geological
evidence does not support it. But even so, in that very same statement they turn
around and conclude that the Earth is in fact expanding at a rate of 0.1 millimeter
each year. Such expansion is still greater than the average annual accretion of

 Page 28
meteors, asteroids, comets, and space dust. Worse, this 0.1mm value only
results after they first “zero out” the averaged 18 millimeter annual increase that
their satellite measurements report (which is something they often “forget” to report).
When confronted about it, they claim this annual ~18mm value is an error in
“atmospheric correction”. But this is odd, considering that the previous year’s base-
level Earth diameter they use to compute the current year’s diameter strangely reflects
the diameter they had to reject during the previous year, but they must now accept it
to keep the appearance of their current correction narrow. However,
independent measurements of seafloor spreading clearly show as much as a 22
millimeter per year increase in Earth’s diameter. This 18mm to 22mm expansion
rate is right in tune with estimates made by Expansion Tectonics. These readings
are not exclusive. They can only compliment each other. If one measurement
demonstrates an increase – the other measurement has to also reflect it.
SUBNOTE: NASA’s argument for the Earth not expanding fails to explain why GPS satellite data
must still be periodically updated to offset all oceans slowly increasing their surface area. Were
Earth not expanding, as they publicly maintain, none of those updates would be necessary. And if
continental plates drifted, oceans would narrow at some points, but such evidence does not exist.
Further, if continents actually subducted to offset this expansion, there is as of yet no evidence for
that. Likewise, the assertion that the Himalayan Mountains are an example of such subduction is
wholly unscientific speculation and it so far has no supporting geological evidence.
As an interesting mental exercise, consider
taking a spherical map of the Earth and
cutting out all of its seas and oceans, and
then simply fasten the remaining land
masses together. Strangely enough, they fit
and close up almost perfectly… on an Earth
¼ its present size. This is true on all sides
of it. Australia and Antarctica also fit
together and fill up and nearly close the
Pacific, neatly joining Eastern Asia with the
Western Americas. The land masses fill in
and close up, all without subduction or
drift, showing what the earth looked like
about 70 million years ago. Further, if many
areas of the continental shelves that were
clearly stretched by this global expansion were again recompressed, such
as Canada, the globe would close up perfectly. How does one explain that?
Where were the oceans? They originally covered the primordial granite
crust until they eventually drained into the ever-expanding lower-elevation
basalt-filled cracks that eventually became the present oceans and seas,
leaving the original higher granite crust to become almost entirely dry
land. But how does a planet grow? Do massive asteroid impacts,
generating colossal explosions of energy, somehow initiate planetary mass
Age of the Ocean Floor
Download from NOAA’s NGDC at:
www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/fliers/96mgg04.html

 Page 29
expansion? Why are the ocean floors generally from 1 year to 70 million
years old, and the absolute oldest tiny portions of them being from 185 to
280 million years old (notice the dark blue areas in the above maps),
when the currently existing continental crust is over four billion years
old? Why is that? We will also explore these questions in my letters,
presented later.
NOTE: The Earth was initially a shallow ocean planet after it cooled enough to
hold free-standing water on its flat, smooth crust. But when the Earth finally
expanded beyond the stress limits of this original granite crust, the crust cracked
and the shallow seas began to drain off into these new expanding breaks, which
after tens of millions of years of expansion as these rills filled with a thinner crust
of harder-than-granite basalt magma, eventually forming broad ocean beds (the
tremendous force of this draining may also be the cause for catastrophic landslides that
fossilized vast swaths of early sea life within those original shallow seas that at first
covered the granite crust before it drained off). Once significant dry land appeared,
about two-thirds of the Earth’s surface remained submerged. Indeed, until 60
million years ago, some tracts of the presently exposed continental crust
remained submerged under what we now call the shallow primordial inland seas.
Being that the earliest crust of the Earth is now almost all exposed dry land, save
for what we presently refer to as the continental shelves, portions of which had
been exposed during periodic glaciation periods, this would also explain why no
extremely ancient aquatic fossils are ever found in the much younger oceanic
basalt, but only on what is now dry land. This also means that until about 70
million years ago mountains did not exist, which resulted from natural crustal
compression and buckling as the Earth expanded and the crust slowly began to
flatten as the surface curved less. This also means that many mountain ranges
might not have had to evolve over millions of years, as it is generally assumed,
but some may have actually formed in a matter of days, weeks, months, or years
as dramatic, cataclysmic events. Also consider the Appalachian Mountains in the
eastern USA. For years they were thought to be eroded, worn down mountains,
much older than the Rocky Mountains to their west, yet new data shows them to
be in pristine condition, but they are simply buried beneath soil hauled over them
by frequent glaciation, which did not occur as often in the Rocky Mountains.
The distressing news to the ears of the professors of modern science-by-
consensus is that there is now more scientific evidence supporting an
Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics, and there is likewise an utter
dearth of evidence supporting their own suppositions, rendering their
current consensus theories more and more irrelevant. Indeed, larger and
ever-growing bodies of scientists are now turning to the Electric Universe
and Expansion Tectonics simply because there is actual science to support
them, not just empty presumptions. The current, aging consensus theories
are now looking more and more like the emperor’s “new” clothes.

 Page 30
A true scientist is naturally skeptical, though they hunger to understand
everything. Their goal is not to simply verify theories, but to test and perhaps
disprove them so that better theories can be developed. But modern post-
graduate education is not designed that way, where you must now follow
rules that border on religious doctrine, accept and chant existing theories as
Rote and Truth, and take anything else as heretical and worthy of ridicule.
Interestingly, just 50 to 100 years ago these present “established” theories
were just as heretical. Why was it that back then it was the students who
challenged the established and older and credentialed academics with new
concepts in science? But now it seems to be the older academics who present
the revolutionary ideas, challenging the idealism of the younger generation of
academics who have been somehow trained to be locked into a fixed universe
of rigid rules of collective reason, and especially when many of these elder
academics were once the sources of the rote these young academics chant?
Science used to be all about breaking from older theories and exploring
new concepts. Indeed, one used to make their mark in science by
exploring new avenues that often went against the grain of the sciences
being taught in the halls of academia. This once even gave one notoriety
and consideration, but seldom distain (though maybe some quizzical
looks). Science used to rightly be a culture of doubt and dissent.
But that was before science became a religion.
Now, science will not tolerate doubt or dissent. Modern academia has become
a creed whose adherents believe that they possess Ultimate Truth, and
nothing new can exist that can break these hallowed laws. What kind of real
scientist still holds to an idea even when all evidence will go against it; when
their own evidence of proof may sometimes contradict their own theories?
Cases in point are the Thermonuclear Model of the Sun, the Big Bang, and
Black Holes. We will herein explore the fallacies in these theories as well.
And science is not about proof by consensus. As the late Professor Sam
Warren Carey once told Dr. James Maxlow, both protagonists for
Expansion Tectonics, “if 50 million believe in a fallacy it is still a fallacy.”
Sadly, many of the academics with whom I discuss such issues, who promote
the ideal of an open, considerative mind, thinking it a most noble and
admirable quality, expect that the open mind should be an asset required of
those who will oppose their opinions, but not something requisite of
themselves, thinking themselves too educated to be mistaken. As the late Sir
Lawrence Gardner once said regarding such rudimentary thinking, “Intuitive
skepticism is the best route to learning absolutely nothing.”

 Page 31
Were you on board a ship over a deep ocean abyss and you were given a
choice to wear a life jacket or to have a massive stone wheel tied to your
ankle before you were to be hurled overboard, but you were first informed
that the life jacket, under certain very rare and complicated theoretical
circumstances, could actually make you sink faster, which of them would
be your choice? This is the common sense decision we are now facing in
the sciences.
—David Ross Goben

 Page 32
The Letters.
The following are letters originally dated 12 August, 2011 through 8 Sept,
2011. The versions of them presented here feature additional asides, notes,
expansions, corrections, and a bounty of supplementary research, to help lay
people reading them get up to speed on this data. These letters explore the
Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics, and how I believe that they are in
fact inexorably connected through the principles of Prime Matter.
As stated in a separate reply to Dr. James Maxlow, in an attempt to clarify
grammatical anomalies in my initial quickly posted emails, my mind
sometimes races so fast that my grammar suffers for it when I attempt to pin
it to text, such as when I accidentally run sentences together, and particularly
when I frantically seek to keep pace with my speeding streams of
consciousness and I skip the last half of one sentence and the first half of the
next, or my (stupid) word processor’s auto-correct function misrepresents my
intent. As a result, I typically make a habit of editing a document to absolute
death before I feel that I finally have got it right. But at the same time I keep
adding, altering, or trimming its details, adjusting it to satisfy my incessant
need to give my text a rhythmic cadence, to give it a Gnostic structure, and to
give it, as needed, an abundance of supporting details, so it always grows
much longer and much more detailed when compared to the original draft. I
generally do not try to transmit my writing until I can review it entirely and
not feel the slightest need to clarify anything (as can be attested to by this
document, originally 16 pages in September of 2011, growing constantly
since it was first published), which sometimes takes weeks or even months.
The following is an example of what can transpire in just a matter of a few
months and may give you a hint of the work that I put into even a simple
email. God knows what this will look like in a year or two. More than once I
have written short papers that in time became books of several hundred pages.
To the disappointment of many, I will not allot the many pages need to detail and
actually prove something that I once used to laugh off as loony-tunes – that every
celestial body above a certain size is actually hollow. The wild thing about this
otherwise insane idea is that it can in fact be proven. For those who would like to
explore the physics of how this is possible, you need only access to a child's
gyroscope. All the physics needed can be found there. That, and the Earth and
Moon are already known to be hollow by the fact that they actually ring like bells
during quakes. This has most physicist seriously scratching their heads, because
it cannot be scientifically denied. Sadly, this is how Pluto, the Sun's first
offspring, split into a binary planet when it was ripped apart by close encounters
with the entering binary brown dwarf stars Uranus and Neptune (their fires
flashed out due to the Sun's more powerful heliopause). Had it remained intact,
which had split apart to bear a binary companion and numerous smaller satellite
moons, all within human memory, it would today still be classified as a Planet.

 Page 33
Letter of 13 August 2011 (Correction for 11 August 2011).
The following letter includes annotational elaborations, for lay reader clarification,
on a 13 August 2011 letter, which had the 12 August 2012 letter (see page 42)
appended to it, sent to British geologist James Maxlow (www.jamesmaxlow.com):
This letter regards the possible explanations for the Earth and other
celestial bodies expanding, as explained on web page 2 of your
Expansion Tectonics link found at your detailed and most informative
website, under the heading, “What is causing the Earth to expand?” Even
as a child I was cognizant of the likelihood for the Earth expanding,
primarily due to my total fascination with Earth Science and space
exploration, but I had initially assumed that this was due to meteoric and
asteroid/comet accretion, and compounded by the constant attraction and
accumulation of dust and comet-tail debris that permeates our orbital
space, but all of this still did not compensate for the much greater rate of
planetary expansion that satellite measurements taken by NASA and
physical measurements taken by geologists have reported.
NOTE: Since this letter, Dr. Maxlow sent me a copy of his Extended Expansion
Tectonics paper, which he was at the time preparing to deliver in Sicily.
In hindsight, I recall thinking that gravity had to be weaker in the far distant
past so to support the more gigantic dinosaurs. Even though most dinosaurs
were of a smaller sort, and that even Velociraptor was actually half the size
that Steven Spielberg depicted in his Jurassic Park movies, perhaps mistaking
length for height, though likely for a more dramatic effect, those of giant
Theropoda (Beast Feet) origin, such as the carnivorous Allosaurus,
Giganotosaurus, or Tyrannosaurus, a suborder of bipedal Saurischian
(lizard-hipped) dinosaurs from which birds descended, they still had avian
skeletal structures, albeit greater bone size, but that still did not translate to
less hollow bones and which, having hollow bones, those bones could not
have supported them in our present gravity. For example, if an elephant,
normally having solid, dense bones, instead had non-avian dinosaur bones,
even if those bones were proportionally scaled to match elephantine length
and girth, the elephant would simply collapse as those bones not just simply
broke, but shattered during any attempt to simply move and shift its weight.
I have made a point to introduce the ideas of the late Dr. Samuel Warren
Carey, and the continuation of his work through yourself and Neal Adams
to Wal Thornhill (www.holoscience.com) and David Talbott (www.thunderbolts.info),
protagonists for the Electric Universe theory. Their theory is gaining ever-
increasing strength through massive data gathering by all related fields of
science, though the data is largely ignored by cosmologists because it,

Open letters to the electric universe and expansion tectonics theorists

Open letters to the electric universe and expansion tectonics theorists

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Open letters to the electric universe and expansion tectonics theorists

Similar to Open letters to the electric universe and expansion tectonics theorists (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Open letters to the electric universe and expansion tectonics theorists