Gravity: Consciousness Matters

Nicolas Fatio (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Kinetic (push or shadow) theory of gravity was first proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690. Later Georges-Louis Le Sage in 1748 termed the particles ultra-mundane corpuscles. (GMS: Might we be seeing them today as Dark Energy?)

Variations of this theory remain the only mechanism proposed for gravitation. Objects partially absorb corpuscle flow, causing a shadow of reduced corpuscle density around objects, and thus a net pressure pushing the objects together.

In order to cause a gravitational force, collisions must not be fully elastic, or reflected particles must be slowed so that their momentum is reduced after impact.

The imbalance of momentum flow over an entire spherical surface enclosing an object is independent of the size of the enclosing sphere, while the surface area of the sphere increases by the square of the radius. Thus the momentum imbalance on a particular body follows the inverse square law observed for gravity, as do similar electrical forces.

The matter is mostly space, and ultimately just standing waves of energy, so very small particles or very high-frequency waves mostly pass through unattenuated. It is now found that gravity acts based on all energy, not just particulate matter.

Nicolas Fatio presented the first formulation of his thoughts on gravitation in a letter to Christiaan Huygens in the spring of 1690.[1] Two days later Fatio read the content of the letter before the Royal Society in London. His work was first published in 1929.[3]

In the last version of his theory in 1742, he proposed “perfect elasticity or spring force” for the particles and “imperfect elasticity” to gross matter, resulting in diminished velocity for the reflected particles. He proposed that the size of the particles is so small that mutual interaction is rare.

Condensation

Fatio thought initially that if corpuscles travel slower after interaction with matter, they might accumulate, which he called “condensation”. Later he thought that this would only occur if there is a greater rate of self-collision near the mass. With a high enough velocity and elasticity, the difference in densities could be arbitrarily small while producing the same gravitational force. (GMS: If there are periodic conditions such as plasma discharge which increase resonance with the corpuscles, the density could temporarily increase enough to cause them to collide and condense into new matter.)

Porosity of matter

Because of mass proportionality, Fatio concluded that gross matter is super permeable to corpuscles. (Today, this is confirmed)

Pressure force of the particles

In 1690 Fatio derived the formula p=ρv2zz/6 for a point zz, which is very similar to that for the kinetic theory of gases p=ρv2/3, by Daniel Bernoulli in 1738. Bernoulli’s value is twice Fatio’s, because Fatio calculated the value mv (inelastic collisions) for the change of impulse after the collision, not 2mv (elastic collisions).

Resistance of the medium

Where u is the velocity of matter, v is the velocity of corpuscles, and ρ is the density of the medium, in the case v >> u and ρ = const. the resistance is 4/3ρuv.

In the case v << u and ρ = const. Fatio stated that the resistance is ρu2.

Newton observed that the lack of resistance to orbital motion requires an extreme sparseness of the medium of space. So Fatio observed that to produce sufficient gravitational force in his model, a rarified medium would be compensated for with a higher v “inverse proportional to the square root of the density” due to gravity (corpuscle pressure) which is proportional to ρv2. A very high v produces very little resistance compared to gravity because resistance is proportional to ρuv while gravity is proportional to ρv2.

Reception of Fatio’s theory

Isaac Newton wrote in a note in his own copy of the Principia in 1692: The unique hypothesis by which gravity can be explained is however of this kind and was first devised by the most ingenious geometer Mr. N. Fatio.[5] Fatio stated that Newton commented privately that Fatio’s theory was the best possible mechanical explanation of gravity, but that Newton believed that the true explanation of gravitation was not mechanical. Gregory wrote in his “Memoranda”: “Mr. Newton and Mr. Halley laugh at Mr. Fatio’s manner of explaining gravity.”[5]

Leibniz rejected Fatio’s theory on philosophical grounds for demanding empty space between particles (though such objection is not tenable today). Jakob Bernoulli expressed an interest in Fatio’s Theory and urged Fatio to write his thoughts on gravitation in a complete manuscript, which Bernoulli copied and now resides in the university library of Basel. Fatio was never able to formally publish his work, so it was never widely known.

Le Sage, Cramer, and Redeker later produced similar theories. The first such publication was in 1756.[8] Le Sage proposed quantitative estimates for some parameters. He proposed ultramundane corpuscles, which propagate similar to light. Le Sage thought that no gravitational force would arise if matter-particle collisions were perfectly elastic, so he proposed interactions completely inelastic normal to the surface, and perfectly elastic tangential to the surface. He claimed that the mean speed of scattered particles is 2/3 of their incident speed. He claimed that resistance of the flux is proportional to uv (where v is the velocity of the particles and u that of matter) and gravity is proportional to v2. He first suggested that corpuscles move at the speed of light, and later revised this to 10^5 times the speed of light. Le Sage also applied the shadow mechanism to account for forces of cohesion and other forces by hypothesizing a variety of dimensions of corpuscles.

Roger Joseph Boscovich pointed out that the theory is the first to explain the mechanics of gravity. He rejected the model because of the enormous amount of ‘unused’ corpuscles. He favored action at a distance, without any intermediary particle. John Playfair describes Boscovich’s position:

“An immense multitude of atoms, thus destined to pursue their never ending journey through the infinity of space, without changing their direction, or returning to the place from which they came, is a supposition very little countenanced by the usual economy of nature. Whence is the supply of these innumerable torrents; must it not involve a perpetual exertion of creative power, infinite both in extent and in duration? [14]”

Maxwell later used a similar argument, yet today physics sees a universe filled with 95% unknown dark energy and dark matter.

Georg Christoph Lichtenberg’s[15] wrote “If it is a dream, it is the greatest and the most magnificent which was ever dreamed…” and that we can fill with it a gap in our books, which can only be filled by a dream.[16] (GMS: Now we are considering the possibility that the corpuscle is a kind of a dream… an imaginary or virtual particle!) He was later convinced by Immanuel Kant that attraction must be the fundamental force.[17] Spatial configurations of matter imply a binding force to hold the particles together. This was the same objection used against the impulse theory of Descartes. (Today we know of the strong and weak forces which serve this function, but still, fail to explain gravity)

Pierre-Simon Laplace tried to measure the speed of gravity consistent with astronomical observations. He calculated that it must be “at least a hundred millions of times greater than that of light”, based on lunar motion.[19] This was taken as support for the Newtonian notion of instantaneous action at a distance. Laplace also argued that to maintain mass-proportionality the upper limit for the earth’s molecular surface area is at the most the ten-millionth of the earth's surface.

The development of the kinetic theory in the second half of the 19th century brought renewed interest in kinetic theories of gravitation.

Since corpuscles are thought to lose speed when interacting with matter to produce gravitation, huge quantities of energy must go into internal energy modes or be absorbed by matter. Armand Jean Leray[20] proposed that the absorbed energy is used to produce magnetism and heat. He thought this could power the stars.

Lord Kelvin published a paper in 1873.[21] in which he showed that the absorbed energy is sufficient to vaporize matter in a fraction of a second. Kelvin repeated Fatio’s thought on the thermodynamic issue, that heat might be absorbed by internal energy modes of the corpuscles, based on his proposal of the vortex-nature of matter. The original translational kinetic energy of the corpuscles is transferred to internal vibrational or rotational energy.

Peter Guthrie Tait called the theory the only plausible explanation of gravitation which has been propounded at that time:

“The most singular thing about it is that, if it be true, it will probably lead us to regard all kinds of energy as ultimately Kinetic.[22]”

Samuel Tolver Preston[24] proposed that the mean free path of the corpuscles is at least the distance between the planets and that in open space the particles regain their translational energy due to mutual collisions. He concluded that gravity would have a limited range of effects. Paul Drude suggested a relationship with the theories of Carl Gottfried Neumann and Hugo von Seeliger, who propose absorption of gravity in open space.[25]

James Clerk Maxwell

A review of the Kelvin-Le Sage theory was published by James Clerk Maxwell in the Ninth Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica under the title Atom in 1875.[26] He concludes:[27]

“Here, then, seems to be a path leading towards an explanation of the law of gravitation, which, if it can be shown to be in other respects consistent with facts, may turn out to be a royal road into the very arcana of science.”

Maxwell commented on Kelvin’s suggestion of different energy modes of the corpuscles that this means they are systems with internal energy modes which must be held together by forces of attraction. He proposes that matter and corpuscles would approach thermal equilibrium, which should incinerate matter within seconds. (GMS: this assumes thermal coupling) He wrote:

“We have devoted more space to this theory than it seems to deserve, because it is ingenious, and because it is the only theory of the cause of gravitation which has been so far developed as to be capable of being attacked and defended.” The theory requires “an enormous expenditure of external power” which he thought violates conservation of energy. Preston countered Maxwell’s assessment with the observation that the kinetic energy of a corpuscle could be as low as required, given a lower mass and higher density. On deeper investigation, Poincaré found that the thermodynamic issue remains unresolved.

Adalbert Ryšánek in 1887 [29] applied Maxwell’s law of particle velocities in a gas. He distinguished between gravitational and luminiferous (cosmic plasma?) aethers. According to his calculations, the absence of drag in the orbit of Neptune gives a lower limit for particle velocity of 5 · 10^19 cm/s. He thought that absorbed energy is converted to heat, and transferred to the luminiferous aether and/or used by stars.

Paul du Bois-Reymond (1888) pointed out that for exact mass proportionality as in Newton’s theory (which implies no shielding or saturation and infinitely porous matter), the corpuscle flux must be of infinite intensity. He also felt that “elasticity” and “absolute hardness” can only be explained by attractive forces.[30]

Wave models

François Antoine Edouard and Em. Keller[31] proposed a theory in 1863 based on longitudinal waves. In 1869, Paul-Emile Lecoq de Boisbaudran[32] proposed a model like that of Leray including absorption and heat production, also using longitudinal waves.

Hendrik Antoon Lorentz

In 1900 Hendrik Lorentz[33] conceived that electromagnetic waves could produce pressure and can have a penetrating power. An attractive force between charged particles would result only if the incident energy is completely absorbed.

“The circumstance, however, that this attraction could only exist, if in some way or other electromagnetic energy were continually disappearing, is so serious a difficulty, that what has been said cannot be considered as furnishing an explanation of gravitation. Nor is this the only objection that can be raised. If the mechanism of gravitation consisted in vibrations which cross the aether with the velocity of light, the attraction ought to be modified by the motion of the celestial bodies to a much larger extend than astronomical observations make it possible to admit.”

Thomas Tommasina[38] from 1903 to 1928 proposed long wavelength radiation to explain gravity, and short-wavelength radiation for explaining cohesive forces of matter. Charles F. Brush[39] in 1911 also proposed long-wavelength radiation, but later proposed extremely short wavelengths.

In 1905, George Darwin calculated gravitational force between bodies at extremely close range to see if geometrical effects would lead to deviation from Newton’s law.[40] He found that only with perfectly inelastic collisions (zero reflection) would Newton’s law stand, reinforcing the thermodynamic issue. He said that the emission of light is the exact converse of the absorption of corpuscles.

An important criticism was given by Henri Poincaré in 1908.[42] He concluded that the attraction is proportional to S√ρv, where S is the earth’s molecular surface area, v is the velocity of the particles, and ρ is the density of the medium. Following Laplace, he argued that to maintain mass-proportionality the upper limit for S is at the most a ten-millionth of the Earth’s surface. Now, drag (i.e. the resistance of the medium) is proportional to Sρv and therefore the ratio of drag to attraction is inversely proportional to Sv. To reduce drag, Poincaré calculated a lower limit for v = 24 · 10^17times the speed of light. So there are lower limits for Sv and v, and an upper limit for S, and with those values, one can calculate the produced heat, which is proportional to Sρv3. The calculation shows that the earth’s temperature would rise by 10^26 degrees per second. Poincaré analyzed some wave models (Tommasina and Lorentz), remarking that they suffered the same problems as the particle models. To reduce drag, superluminal wave velocities were necessary, and they would still be subject to the heating issue. He also considered a re-radiation model like Thomson. He stated that if in Lorentz’s model the absorbed energy is fully converted to heat, it would raise the earth’s temperature by 10^13 degrees per second. (GMS: this parallels current assumptions that the only effect of microwave absorption is to produce heat, non-specific translational energy, but quantum absorptions also have specific resonances, and therefore specific effects, such as breaking of nitrogen bonds in proteins, making microwaved food less digestible to proteolytic enzymes. A Swiss study found that after 2 weeks of eating only microwaved food, subjects' live blood appearance was indistinguishable from that of cancer patients, indicating Phase 1 low energy terrain in my 5 Phases of Health model of biophysics. Americans eat about 4 times more protein than they can optimally utilize anyway, so the putrefactive process resulting from microwave Nitrogen bond breaking is not typically discernible.)

Predictions of the theory

A basic prediction of the theory is the extreme porosity of matter. As predicted by Huygens even before Fatio, matter consists mostly of empty space. This basic view has been confirmed.

Cosmic radiation

Every kinetic gravitation model proposes a superluminal isotropic flux or radiation of enormous intensity and penetration. Cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) discovered in the 20th century is fairly isotropic but of low intensity and penetration and is not superluminal. Neutrinos are penetrating but the flux is not isotropic, high intensity, or superluminal. The potential for the neutrino or a neutrino-like particle to mediate quantum gravitation was disproved by Feynman.[43]

Gravitational Shielding

At some level of increasing amounts of mass, the shadow resulting with each increase must become less than the sum of the two individually, a hypothetical effect called gravitational shielding. For this to appear directly proportional at testable mass levels the shielding effect must be small, and so the interaction cross-section of matter must be extremely small. This results in an extremely high minimum level on the intensity to produce the observed gravitation. Any gravitational shielding would be inconsistent with the extremely precise null result observed in the Eötvös and later experiments which confirmed precise equivalence of active and passive gravitational mass with inertial mass as predicted by general relativity.[44]

Speed of gravity

Drag

A mass is subject to drag when it is in motion relative to a unique isotropic frame in which the speed of the corpuscles is the same in all directions because the particles striking from the front have a higher relative speed than those striking from behind. The magnitude of drag is proportional to vu, where v is the speed of the particles and u is the speed of the body, whereas the force of gravity is proportional to v2, so the ratio of drag to gravitation is proportional to u/v. The speed v is therefore necessarily much greater than the speed of light. Superluminal speeds would appear to invalidate special relativity theory, but superluminal speeds are being observed in other instances as well. The thermal issue is another matter still unresolved.

Aberration

As shown by Laplace, orbital aberration could be caused by a finite speed of gravity, but the superluminal speeds proposed by Le Sage and Kelvin solve this. If present at all, this component will act to accelerate both objects away from each other, countering any slight drag effect. In general relativity, theory gravity is proposed to propagate at the speed of light but the induced aberration is nearly canceled by velocity-dependent terms in the interaction.[48]

Range of gravity

In particle models like Kelvin’s, the range of gravity is limited by the nature of particle interactions. The range is determined by the rate the internal modes eliminate the momentum defects or shadows created on passing through matter. Predictions of the range of gravity depend on specific modes of interactions available in interactions. The large-scale structure of the cosmos constrains this to allow for the aggregation of immense gravitational structures. (GMS: unless those immense structures are fundamentally electromagnetic)

Energy Absorption

A major issue is an energy and heat. Maxwell and Poincaré showed that inelastic collisions lead to the vaporization of matter within fractions of a second. Aronson[27] gave proof of Maxwell’s assertion:

“Suppose that, contrary to Maxwell’s hypothesis, the molecules of gross matter actually possess more energy than the particles. In that case the particles would, on the average, gain energy in the collision and the particles intercepted by body B would be replaced by more energetic ones rebounding from body B. Thus the effect of gravity would be reversed: there would be a mutual repulsion between all bodies of mundane matter, contrary to observation. If, on the other hand, the average kinetic energies of the particles and of the molecules are the same, then no net transfer of energy would take place, and the collisions would be equivalent to elastic ones, which, as has been demonstrated, do not yield a gravitational force.”

Isenkrahe’s violation of the energy conservation law is unacceptable, and Kelvin’s application of Clausius’ theorem leads (as noted by Kelvin) to perpetual motion. Secondary re-radiation for wave models was of interest to JJ Thomson, but not taken seriously by either Maxwell or Poincaré, because it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

The energy issue has been considered in relation to the idea of mass accretion in the Expanding Earth theory by Yarkovsky and Hilgenberg.[49] By mass-energy equivalence, if the Earth was absorbing all the energy necessary to produce the force of gravity using values calculated by Poincaré, its mass would double in a fraction of a second.

Coupling to energy

Observational evidence now shows that gravity interacts with all forms of energy. The electrostatic binding energy and weak interactions in the nucleus, and kinetic energy of electrons contribute to the gravitational mass of an atom, as confirmed with high precision in Eötvös and similar experiments.[50] Lunar Laser Ranging experiments show that gravitational binding energy interacts as well, so a successful theory of gravitation must be nonlinear and self-coupling.[51] [52] Variations of the theory do not predict any of these effects. (GMS: see my theory below)

Non-gravitational applications and analogies

Mock gravity

Lyman Spitzer in 1941[53] calculated that absorption of radiation between two dust particles leads to a net attractive force that varies proportionally to 1/r2 (apparently unaware of other shadow theories especially Lorentz’s considerations of radiation pressure and gravity). George Gamow called the effect “mock gravity” and proposed in 1949[54] that after the big bang the temperature of the electrons dropped faster than the temperature of the background radiation. Absorption of radiation and the kinetic shadow mechanism between electrons was proposed to have an important role in galaxy formation shortly after the big bang. This was disproved by Field in 1971,[55] showing that the effect was too small because electrons and the radiation were nearly in thermal equilibrium. Hogan and White proposed in 1986[56] that this mechanism affected galaxy formation by absorption of pregalactic starlight. But Wang and Field[57] showed that mock gravity cannot produce enough force to affect galaxy formation.

Plasma

The mechanism is a significant factor in the behavior of dusty plasma. A.M. Ignatov[58] showed an attractive force between dust grains in an isotropic collisionless plasma due to inelastic collisions between ions and grains of dust. The force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between dust grains and counterbalances the Coulomb repulsion between dust grains.

Vacuum energy

In quantum field theory, the existence of virtual particles is proposed, which leads to the so-called Casimir effect. Casimir calculated that between two plates only particles with specific wavelengths should be counted when calculating the vacuum energy. Thus energy density between plates is less when plates are close, causing a net attractive force between plates. The conceptual framework of this effect is very different from prior theories.

Recent work

19th-century work on this identified issues of heating, drag, shielding, and gravitational aberration, resulting in decreased work on the concepts. Einstein’s theory of general relativity became the dominant theory, even though it does not suggest any mechanism.

In 1965 Richard Feynman looked at the mechanism as an attempt to explain Newton’s inverse-square law of gravity in terms of simpler primitive operations without the use of complex mathematics. He notes that it produces the inverse-square force law and that “the strangeness of the mathematical relation will be very much reduced”, but concludes that it “does not work” because of drag “so that is the end of that theory”[59][60] (GMS: even though there is zero issue of drag at highly superluminal speeds. His perspective conforms to mainstream acceptance of Einstein’s proposal that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, though this cannot be proven, and there is now evidence to the contrary).

Work on the theory outside the mainstream includes Radzievskii and Kagalnikova (1960),[61] Shneiderov (1961),[62] Buonomano and Engels (1976),[63] Adamut (1982),[64] Jaakkola (1996),[65] Tom Van Flandern (1999),[66] and Edwards (2007)[67]

—

What’s next? The still dominant Relativity Hypothesis is incompatible with actual Quantum Dynamic observations. To me, relativity is an elegant and quite accurate mathematical description, but not a mechanism or explanation of gravity. But I do believe Einstein’s insight on the equivalence of energy and mass, E=mc^2, points the way to a comprehensive unity field in physics. We grasp the meaning that everything is made of energy, with matter seen either in its wave function form or else in its coherent standing wave, particle-like form as mass. We also see from recent work that all energy has a gravitational effect. Energy and mass really are equivalents, but seen from different perspectives. What is real is energy. That is all there ultimately is in the many forms of creation. What we conceive as mass is a particle or separate thing, a conception of our imagination (Maya or illusion in Eastern thought). There is no separateness. All is ultimately of the one source, one nature, the living body of God. What has been missing is a grasp of the function of the speed of light squared. Let’s rewrite the formula just slightly:

E = (-m) (-c^2)

The reality and unity of all as energy moving forward in time can be separated into two synergistic perceptions, indicated by the negative values as we look back at them. (-m) is the conception of form or mass, which is perceived in reverse time, as we look back at the phenomena of creation that have already happened. (-c^2) is not only superluminal, incorporating the speed of light squared, but it is in reverse time, being negative. God’s vision, Grace, the foundation of all that is, travels in reverse time. These wave forms are related to light, but are the imaginary or virtual counterpart to the photon, the equivalent of an anti-photon, or a photon traveling in reverse time, just as the other fundamental subatomic particles have their reverse time anti-particle equivalents:

electron = -positron

neutron = -anti-matter

The spiritual equivalent of E=mc^2 is the trinity:

Holy Ghost = (Son) (Father)

This ends the millennium-long debate between Orthodox and Catholic theologians. The Orthodox say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. The Catholics say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. The real problem is the attempt to speak the fullness of Truth with our temporal thinking and language. The word proceeds indicate forward motion (pro) in temporal thinking, and the word from indicates retrograde contemplation of origin in spatial thinking. These words bring in spatial and temporal relationships which depend upon multiple quanta or apparent separations of space and time. Yet God is transcendent of these properties, and therefore cannot be accurately defined by such words. No wonder God’s Church has been split into two wings for a millennium. Perhaps this single quantum language translation as a theological expression of the triune personhood of God will help it to fly:

For the Holiness of the Spirit is with the synergy by the Son and Father.

or functionally:

For the Sanctification of the Spirit is with the love by the Redeemer and Creator.

and:

For the unity of all Spirit is with the multiplication by the Formation and Grace

or from a fractal Creature perspective:

Freedom = Truth x Seeking,

where:

Truth is the potentially consensual is-ness or coherence in time, space, and consciousness of all things in God’s creation.

Seeking is the acceptance of any coherence of our sensorial inspirations, affective aspirations, cognitive contemplations, willful activations, and visionary missions.

Freedom is fractal participation in creation. (God draws straight with crooked lines.)

or written another way:

Space = Time x Consciousness

where:

Time = the movement and mutable coherence of local standing wave formations

Space = is the immutable coherence of energy of the non-local plenum

Consciousness = the time-reflective fractal participatory lawfulness, orderliness, or coherence of all movement and change

or alternatively:

Scalar absolute = +Vector x -Vector

Thus all is a fractal vortex structure of the plenum. Even if there was a beginning of creation in time, or a so-called big bang, this structure would make it possible, as the source of the at least nearly infinite energy would have appeared not out of a non-existent past, but called into being out of its own time-transcendently real future via the power of consciousness by the creator. So-called vacuum energy, more appropriately Plenum Energy (plenum means fullness, opposite of the notion of a vacuum, which is energetically impossible) is a sea of energy making up 73% of the mass of the universe, nearly three times greater than the foam of standing waves of matter floating in it, of which our senses, even extended by modern science have detected only 16% (4% or 1/25 of total energy). Based on the lower limit set by the Planck constant, there are at least 10^113 Joules of energy per cubic meter of space.

Johari window of our state of knowledge of the universe from relativity perspective:

Matter      Energy

Known      4%            <<1%

Unknown     23%           73%

These figures are based on the current interpretation of cosmological creation as an expanding universe initiated with a big bang and subsequent slowing and then speeding of expansion. This model relies on the Doppler effect interpretation of redshifts for all galaxies and quasars. Another possibility is that redshifts are multi-causal, as has now been demonstrated in laboratory research, and not related to the Doppler effect in a steady-state universe. A steady-state universe was Einstein’s initial exploration, which he later abandoned. Redshifts of galaxies do appear to be nearly linearly related to cosmological distance, but this alone does not imply that further galaxies are moving uniformly away from us. It has been shown that redshift can occur when light travels through a plasma environment due to heating of the plasma by electromagnetic interaction with passing photons, and at an average of one particle per meter of the plasma now estimated to fill cosmological space, the observed redshifts seen are actually expected in a steady-state universe. The cosmic microwave background radiation is expected in this model, as light from extremely distant galaxies suffers so much redshift that it becomes microwaves and can no longer be resolved into images of individual galaxies. It is merely the limit of our photonic image resolution in a potentially infinite universe! Finally, quasars show a wide range of extreme redshifts consistent with a wide range of plasma conditions within these very active, newly forming galactic nuclei, as supported by redshifts documented in laboratory research in plasma physics. Thus, they are not necessarily further away and moving faster away, but simply younger, more active, and with less stable plasma conditions.

Nevertheless, looking from the perspective of the current model, the 73% of the energy in the universe modeled as dark energy is potentially a view of the kinetic plenum which may not only serve to elucidate gravity, but also the arrow (or more accurately the vortex) of time, and the nature of the content of consciousness. Similarly, dark matter may represent the substrate of consciousness and spirit, perhaps even Bose-Einstein Condensates or ORME’s (ORMUS) which are typically footnoted as unknowns, as only two laboratories have ever established the means for technical measurements. For example, brain tissue contains 5% ORMUS by dry weight, and 4/9 of its mass is found to be non-local. These spirit minerals in this view would be found at even higher concentrations in preferred sanctuary locations in the universe, and dark matter is found to concentrate at the center of galaxies as a halo enveloping and extending even beyond the galactic disc. Dark matter also extends between galaxies forming filaments connecting galactic clusters. BECs superconductivity would help link galaxies electrically.

Aether was the fifth element in ancient Greece. Now quintessence, a theory about dark energy, is one view of the fifth element of energy in modern physics. The first four in current thinking are baryonic matter; electromagnetic radiation (photons, and neutrinos which can also be classified as hot dark matter); cold dark matter (which I think could be a form of Bose-Einstein Condensates, since they strongly resist electromagnetic interactions with a Meissner field); and gravitational self-energy due to relativistic spatial curvature.