This theory describes the actions and interactions of the smallest entities of matter in their  three natural forms, gas, liquid and solid and it’s origins lie in Greek theories on the nature of matter .

The first known atomic theory was put forward about 400 BC by Democritus who suggested that ‘ matter consisted of minute hard particles moving  as separate units in empty space’. The Roman, Lucretius later further defined this movement in that ‘ atoms of all bodies are in ceaseless motion, colliding and rebounding from each other’.

From that time there was little, known, development of these ideas until the 17th Century when Gassendi, wrote that ‘atoms (are) similar in substance , although different in size and form, (and) move in all directions through empty space and (are) devoid of all qualities except absolute rigidity’  Bernoulli continued this theme in his publication of 1738 and later Clausius considered that a gas consisted mostly of ‘space’ in his mathematical deduction of Boyle’s and  Charles’ gas laws.

Up to this point the development of ideas about the microscopic structure of matter was more inclined to the theoretical rather than the empirical and when Brownian Motion, i.e. the phenomenon of erratically moving particles in gases and liquids, was observed it was proposed by some as an example of the effect of the kinetic motion of atoms.

Subsequently Maxwell put forward his Law of Distribution of Velocities as a statistical explanation of how the average motion of atomic particles in a gas related to the velocity of individual atoms and this law was later elaborated by Boltzmann. The later experiments involving molecular beam techniques were later accepted by some as a confirmation of the principles of kinetic theory. However at this point in time (mid 1800’s), kinetic theory was not generally accepted and intense debate continued on this subject.

Later the work done by Einstein and, it is said, separately by Von Smoluchowski, about the turn of the century,  ‘showed that this (Brownian) motion, although random, obeys a definite statistical law,.

Kinetic Theory suggests that molecules in a dilute gas are ‘ rushing around at different velocities and bouncing off each other and the walls like a three dimensional game of billiards’.
These molecules in a container ‘ are moving in random directions, and because as many move in one direction as another , the average velocity of the molecules is zero’ – in other words the gas as a whole is not moving or producing unequal pressure on any inside surface of the container.

 ‘ Pressure arises from the multiple collisions the molecules of a  gas have with the walls that contain the gas’ and ‘heat applied to a gas results in an increase in the velocity of the molecules and a corresponding increase in collisions with (and consequently the pressure on) the walls’

Also ‘when the fast moving molecules of a hot gas collide with slower moving molecules of a cooler gas, kinetic energy is transferred from the ‘hot’ to the ‘cold’ molecules’.

In addition the theory suggests that the molecules of a gas only take up a minute proportion of the actual space the gas occupies. ‘ A molecule generally takes up only 1/1000th  of the volume available to it and if we were to scale molecules to the size of human beings with a radius of 0.5 M, the molecules would be spaced some 10 M apart.’ In other words in any given volume of a gas only about 0.1% is  matter in form of ‘solid’ molecules. To put this in some sort of perspective 1000 cubic centimetres (one Litre) of gas contains a total volume of atomic matter which could be fitted into 1 cc while the remaining 999 cc’s are empty ‘space’.

With this spacing the molecules, on average, have to go some distance before colliding with another and the theory states that ‘ the mean free path of a molecule is some 3000 times greater than the diameter of the molecule itself’.

The velocity of individual gas molecules cannot be zero (as according to Kinetic Theory this reflects a state of zero kinetic energy), but can be from zero up to the infinite. The average velocity of air molecules at normal climatic temperatures and pressures however is  in the region of  500-900 metres per second. The theory suggests that the large majority of air molecules are travelling in the region of these velocities.

The diagram below shows this (approximate) random, distribution of gas molecules in a container at constant temperature and pressure in ‘in ceaseless motion’ according to Kinetic Theory .

This provokes some questions.

The first is, what is in the spaces between these molecules?

It is, I think, quite significant that no textbook or any publication generally available attempts to discuss or explain what this ‘space’ is.

However this space obviously has to be, either some form of matter or ‘ether’ that has not been identified, as it’s structure according to Kinetic Theory can clearly not be atomic, or it is nothing and therefore as the theory suggests literally ‘empty space’. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that this means completely empty, or devoid of matter. Space which is completely empty of matter is by definition a perfect vacuum.
Standard dictionaries in defining the word ‘vacuum’ include examples of ‘partial vacuums’ and it is therefore necessary to define a perfect vacuum as ‘a space completely devoid of matter’ or in other words a space that contains no atoms, molecules, ‘ether’ or any subatomic particle identified or unidentified and is consequently neither host to, or influenced by, any energy or force.

For centuries man has been attempting to create ‘higher’ vacuums and has only succeeded in producing partial vacuums. Initially by evacuating gas from containers with mechanical pumps, and in this context it is perfectly clear that no piston/cylinder system, for example, can be manufactured by man which can prevent individual atoms bypassing the seals of such an apparatus manufactured to the finest tolerances achievable by modern techniques.

More refined methods such as diffusion, ionisation, chemisorption etc. are used to produce ‘high’ partial vacuums for commercial and experimental use and development of these and other techniques will no doubt ultimately achieve even higher partial vacuums than the current levels. However it is clear that it is as difficult to achieve a perfect vacuum as it is to get to absolute zero on the Kelvin scale of temperature. This is of course quite logical as the state of a perfect vacuum is a state of zero matter and consequently zero energy and therefore zero temperature. In other words these states are concurrent and identical and one cannot be achieved without the other.

Kinetic Theory however clearly suggests that this state of zero matter, and consequently therefore zero energy and temperature exists freely between the atoms of all matter in any state, solid ,liquid or gas. Not only does it suggest this but postulates that in a gas at 1ATM the volume of this ‘space’ is 99.9% of the total volume of the gas.

The second question is how do these molecules maintain their velocities?

In practice, as observation confirms, a gas confined in a sealed container will continue to maintain a pressure on the internal walls of the container indefinitely.
Kinetic Theory postulates that this pressure is produced by molecules moving about at high speed within the container bouncing off each other and the sides of the container and states that ‘the molecules leave the wall (of the container) with , on average , as much energy as with which they arrive’.

It is quite clear however that in maintaining the integrity of the container against outside pressure any collision of a molecule with the container has to exert a force on the wall and in classical Newtonian physics this collision would result in a loss of energy.

This was a problem for early proponents of Kinetic Theory and it was solved by suggesting that ‘all collisions between molecules are perfectly elastic; all kinetic energy is conserved’ suggesting that molecules somehow lose no energy or momentum as a result of exerting  a force in these collisions and are capable of doing this perpetually.

Of course this raises further questions such as when does this condition of perfect elasticity disappear, as any larger combination of molecules and atoms does not demonstrate this quality?  Is it when one molecule joins with another to form a particle of  matter?

Is it really possible to logically consider a container of gas sealed and left for one hundred years and having no additional energy input, with the molecules inside maintaining kinetic velocities of 500m/s without loss of momentum, and thereby the internal pressure, for all this time??

The third question is what induces these molecules to increase velocity with the introduction of heat by electromagnetic radiation?

Consider  a molecule exposed to such radiation and as a result increasing it’s velocity. This radiation has been transmitted through a vacuum to this molecule and the molecule is moving in a vacuum. The question of how this transmission is effected through a vacuum we will ignore at this stage, but how is this input of radiation translated into an increased motion of the molecule?  What is the output force and what is it acting upon in a vacuum?  Why should the effects of this input of radiation, from a random direction, act on the molecule and all the other molecules in the direction in which each molecule is currently travelling?

Attempting to answer these basic and obvious questions just raises more questions which do not appear to be answered by the application of kinetic theory.

If we look at some practical examples of applying kinetic theory principles to observed natural phenomena, firstly Kinetic Theory gives no clear explanation of how heat transfer actually is effected between different materials. It fails to explain, for example, how this in a gas or a liquid causes a localised convective movement.

The example above is a hot object placed in contact with a gas at a lower temperature. What occurs in practice is that where the gas meets the object convection currents are clearly observed rising close to the surface of the object.

Kinetic Theory states that ‘Molecules that move more rapidly because they are in a region of higher temperature collide with molecules in a neighbouring region, giving the adjacent molecules more kinetic energy and consequently more thermal energy’.

The inference that would be drawn from this is that the gas molecules that somehow absorb thermal energy either by collision with, or radiation from, the object depicted above would increase their velocity relative to surrounding molecules and by the process of further collision distribute the thermal energy to other molecules in all directions, and it is quite clear that this kinetic process, in itself, would not result in convection currents.

Textbooks brush over this very important heat transfer process by vague phraseology such as ‘In free convection the heating process produces a temperature and density gradient in the fluid and fluid motion is induced by the action of gravity’
Also ‘temperature gradients induce convection in fluids, a phenomena that involves the movement of gases or liquids’.  

If there is ‘a density gradient’ this must mean that the gas or liquid is less dense at this particular point than that in the surrounding matter.

How can a ‘kinetic’ gas, consisting of 99.9% ‘space’, become less dense?

Kinetic Theory says that ‘heat applied to a gas results in an increase in the velocity of the molecules and a corresponding increase in collisions’ and suggests that this increase in collisions results in a greater average molecular separation.
Clearly this would mean that where this occurs there would be fewer molecules per unit space and the total mass and therefore the density of this unit volume would be reduced by comparison with adjacent cooler unit volumes of gas.

However if a gas consists of molecules moving independently of each other in space (a vacuum) and the mass of these molecules remains the same and further there is ‘no attraction between molecules’, then gravity can only act on individual molecules and not the gas as a whole because if the gas as a whole is 99.9% a vacuum this proportion of the gas has no mass and accordingly cannot be influenced  by gravity. It follows therefore that an individual molecule in a larger volume of space has the same gravitational attraction as another molecule of the same mass in a smaller volume of space.

Kinetic Theory is therefore suggesting that a single molecule in a larger area of ‘space’ moving at greater velocity has a lower gravitational attraction to the earth than a slower one of the same mass in a smaller area of ‘space’.  However it is the ‘space’ that has expanded and the ‘space’ cannot be affected by gravity as it is devoid of matter. Or to put it in another way if the mass of the molecule remains the same, the gravitational effect in a vacuum would be unchanged.

The theory also has difficulty with the diffusion of heat in gases as heat transference within a gas does not proceed as fast as the theory predicts.

‘It should seem to follow from the fact that the velocities of molecules are very great that the temperature should level out very rapidly. Experiments show, however, that the thermal conductivity of gases is low. A considerable time elapses before the temperature of the gas levels out if one part is heated more than the other’.

Let us look at this in practice. We take a long sealed cylinder divided internally into two parts containing any gas. We heat the gas at one end of the cylinder so that the gas pressure in this end is double that of the other. We then remove the division between the two ends. What happens in practice is that the pressure of the gas in the whole cylinder equalises instantaneously. The temperature however equalises at a much slower rate. This means initially that at one end of the cylinder we have a hot gas and the other end we have a cool gas at the same pressure or in Kinetic Theory terms we have relatively fast moving molecules at one end and slow moving ones at the other end producing the same pressure on the internal surfaces of the cylinder.

Kinetic Theory states that the pressure of gas is dependent upon the velocity of molecules and in this instance it is clear that it is not. A textbook in attempting to explain this contradiction states that ‘the collisions between them  evidently  prevent the free movements of molecules’. Well the inference that should be drawn from this is that if the free movement of molecules is prevented by collision then the transference of energy will be also prevented and if the theory is followed logically the slower moving molecules at one end will continue to maintain a lower pressure there than that of the other end, until they are speeded up by collision with faster moving molecules. It is clear that in kinetic terms either the temperature and pressure should level out instantaneously, or that the  temperature and the pressure should remain at a differential at each end of the cylinder until equalisation eventually takes place.

A third example is that transport phenomena of admixture of two different gases does not proceed as the theory predicts.

Again I quote from a textbook on molecular physics:-

‘Since this transport is also ensured by motion of the molecules, and the velocities of the molecules are high, diffusion should seem to occur rapidly with the concentrations leveling out almost instantaneously. Experiments show , however, that at atmospheric pressure diffusion is a very slow process, and mixing in the absence of motion of the gas as a whole may last several days’ .

This observation is confirmed in practice by the mixing of gases for commercial use and an example is the mixing of nitrogen and helium. If say a 5% helium content is required and the appropriate quantity of helium is introduced into a cylinder and then the balance of nitrogen is introduced separately the helium will remain at the bottom of the cylinder indefinitely. It will also remain at the top if it is introduced after the nitrogen. To achieve a balanced mixture of helium throughout the nitrogen the cylinder is rotated or ‘rumbled’ for some hours on a machine to thoroughly mix the gases.

To put this into perspective let us look at the theoretical situation of a container which has internal dimensions of less than the mean free path of both nitrogen and helium as depicted in the diagram below.

In this container there are two separate compartments one containing helium, the other nitrogen. In each compartment the gas molecules are moving at their relevant average velocities, say 1000m/s and 500m/s respectively, and each is colliding with every wall of the compartment and maintaining pressure on these walls.

We then remove the intervening wall as in the second diagram below and we can postulate, in accordance with the observed  result in practice, that the gases will then remain separated indefinitely.

Kinetic Theory  itself states, as we have seen, that diffusion should seem to occur rapidly with the concentrations levelling out almost instantaneously. It is quite clear in this example that if Kinetic Theory is valid then this mixing would occur immediately.

In an attempt to explain this problem the proponents of Kinetic Theory suggest that while the molecules in the above example move chaotically at high velocity collisions with the molecules of the other gas mean they always end up in the area from which they started in the first place, somehow, in this particular instance, showing chaotic and ordered characteristic’s at the same time. In other words suggesting that any collisions that they endure with molecules of the other gas must result in their returning to the area in which they originated.

Given the postulated chaotic, kinetic movement, and the velocities and ‘spaces’ between molecules, the fact that mixing is not, in commercial and experimental practice, very rapid, is direct and incontrovertible proof that this theory is invalid.

The Ideal (Perfect) Gas Laws are another example, which were developed from Kinetic Theory, and are an imperfect model of the reactions of gases to changes in pressure and temperature and even then in a very limited range of conditions. Even with numerous subsequent modifications and adjustments they still fail to produce a model which can be relied on today.

For example a textbook states that ‘ The ideal-gas equation is not valid at high pressures’ and ‘the ideal gas equation is valid for all gases at sufficiently low densities and sufficiently high temperatures’

A clear example is that these laws completely fail to predict the behaviour of gases during the change of state from gas to liquid. An example is Carbon Dioxide at the point of liquidisation. Again I quote ‘for carbon dioxide at 60 ATM all similarity to perfect gas behaviour is lost’.

Let us look at this particular change of state more closely. According to Kinetic  Theory the progression from gas to liquid should follow the pattern as shown in the graph below for a ‘Perfect Gas’ and the progression is valid initially. Which means that in Kinetic Theory terms the molecules, being confined into less and less ‘space’ due to the decrease in volume corresponding to the increase in applied pressure, collide more and more often with the walls and each other thus resisting the applied pressure.

According to Kinetic Theory atoms in a liquid are positioned in relation to each other at less than one molecular diameter apart and in a gas at Standard Temperature and Pressure 10 molecular diameters. The progression in the graph shows that at a point where the molecules are on average about 4 diameters apart there is suddenly no additional resistance to the applied pressure and the molecules essentially move to 1 diameter apart and the gas liquefies.

Current teaching of Kinetic Theory principles attempts to explain this anomaly by saying that at Standard Temperature and Pressure separations there is no attraction between the molecules of a gas and that as the separation reduces progressively they begin to attract and the attraction increases strongly (in a non-linear fashion) and the force between molecules  then reverses and becomes strongly repulsive in the liquid state.

Again this explanation is illogical. How can there, at one point in the progression, be no attraction whatever, then attraction progressively increases, then decreases to a point where there is neither attraction or repulsion, then finally strong repulsion develops. What are these attractive and repulsive forces and what is causing them to vary in an irregular fashion?  How do they act through and in a vacuum?

This pattern follows the whole development of Kinetic Theory  from Clerk Maxwell’s Laws to the present day, in that where natural phenomena or experimental results have not conformed to the theory then ‘adjustments’ have been made one after the other in order to try and tailor the theory to suit the observed phenomena. This leaves us today with a theory which is so convoluted and ‘adjusted’ so that even where it is capable of practical application is extremely complicated and cumbersome. It needs to be reiterated that it is of course a ‘theory’ which means that there is no experimental evidence which unequivocally proves that molecules are moving a high velocities in a vacuum in any gas. Any contrived experiment that has been carried out to prove this theory have been on the basis of assumptions whereas the examples above are naturally occurring phenomena.

How did this situation develop?

The problem I believe began when some Renaissance and post-Renaissance theorists based their ideas on the nature of matter on the atomic theories of Democritus and other Grecian and Roman philosophers.

Subsequently Clerk Maxwell and Boltzmann followed Clausius in making the same presumption that ‘ atoms of all bodies are in ceaseless motion, colliding and rebounding from each other’  in developing the Laws of Distribution.

The basic presumption was that the motion of the atoms of a gas produced the observed variations of  pressure and volume.

If one makes this presumption then quite clearly it would be possible to come up with a model of spaces, velocities, masses, numbers of collisions etc. etc. which will support this and further to develop this model to cover the observed simple relationships between pressure, temperature and volume of gases under limited conditions. For example, with the tiny atomic masses involved, to allow for the velocities to develop to produce pressure by collision then a relatively huge amount ‘space’ must be introduced between molecules to further allow for the concept of a ‘mean free path’ free of any restriction such as friction or too frequent collisions with other molecules. In addition an attribute has to be given to molecules which does not apply to matter in any larger proportions, that of perfect elasticity.

The phenomenon of Brownian Motion of microscopic particles  is said to be caused by the kinetic motion of atoms, and has been accepted by some as being a manifestation of the effects of this motion, we must start there to examine these questions.

Brownian Motion is the observed random movement of particles suspended in a gas or liquid. This motion of smoke particles in air or pollen particles in water is erratic and difficult to predict and according to Kinetic Theory is due to molecules colliding with the particle.
As the diameter of an average smoke particle has been calculated to be 20,000 times that of a molecule then if, to put this in perspective, we imagine a molecule to be 1mm in diameter then the diameter of a smoke particle to scale would be 20 Metres.

To put this in visual perspective, to this scale, the arc of a circle of 20 metres diameter subtended by 1 degree from it’s centre would measure approximately 175 mm and this arc if drawn across this page would appear to most eyes as a straight line. Accordingly the line in the diagram below represents such an arc and the relative size and distribution of air molecules at Standard Temperature and Pressure according to Kinetic Theory.

In considering this situation in practical terms, it is quite clear that it would require an enormous number of directional, concentrated and sustained  molecular collisions to move an object of this relative size even a fraction of a millimetre. This must occur on one part or side of the particle and must correspond to a lack of , or lesser number, of collisions occurring simultaneously on the opposing side of the particle.

This concerted molecular movement would also have to be a relatively frequent one to produce the movement of particles as seen in Brownian Motion and  it would need to be of a reasonable duration to overcome inertia. It would also be  reasonable to assume that similar concerted movements of molecules  would occur over the whole volume of the gas or liquid and not just in the vicinity of the particle concerned.

This is occurring in a gas where Kinetic Theory states that ‘because as many ( molecules ) move in one direction as another, the average velocity of the molecules is zero’.

It must be quite clear that, whatever any statistical laws may show, looking at this in practical terms the postulate that Brownian Motion of small particles, such as pollen, results from the collective collisions of individual molecules is preposterous.

So here today we have a situation where an phenomenon of movement of particles in gases and liquids, i.e. Brownian Motion, has influenced scientific thinking for over a hundred years. There are other such unexplained, and equally unimportant, phenomena in nature, St. Elmo’s Fire is an example.

I believe the reason why this situation has continued without serious debate in this century was that ‘Einstein showed that this motion, although random, obeys a definite statistical law’, ‘and is in accordance with statistics used by Boltzmann and Maxwell to describe the kinetic motion of molecules’. In other words a set of statistics based on another set of statistics, all of which are based on a 2500 year old assumption that ‘atoms are in ceaseless motion’.

With the introduction of Einstein’s Relativity theory and his subsequent rise to fame and authority, subsequent debate about the validity of Kinetic Theory was, in effect, ended.

As the resulting models formulated on the basis of these ideas cannot predict simple but crucially important phenomena, such as convection, diffusion, the change of state from gas to liquid, etc., it is time to reactivate debate and to look for alternatives that can answer the serious problems that are evident as a result of total reliance on this theory.

It is however quite astonishing to me that this theory with it’s evident serious flaws and contradictions has been accepted by the scientific establishment for the whole of this century without serious examination.

I suggest it is time to consider again Newton’s statement:-

“That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

The assumption that ‘atoms are in ceaseless motion’ in a vacuum is unproven and the theory developed on the basis of this assumption is, as we have seen, self contradictory.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the foregoing examples of the diffusion of heat and admixture of different gases is that atoms are not moving at high velocities. The question therefore becomes whether or not they are moving at all. In the example of the adding of helium to a container of nitrogen, commercial experience is that no mixing takes place over a very long period. On the other hand when mixing is effected by mechanical means the mixture remains in perfect proportions indefinitely. This is remarkable in view of the fact that helium is a much lighter element than nitrogen and it would be expected that it would tend to accumulate at the top of any container eventually.

It follows therefore that it is reasonable and logical to postulate that there is no self generated movement of atoms in a gas. It should follow therefore that there is no such movement at all in matter in the other two natural states.

With respect to ‘space’ between atoms it is I suggest completely illogical to even consider that there is a vacuum, or rather a state of zero mass, energy and therefore pressure and temperature, existing within matter in any of it’s states.

For an alternative theory we must therefore begin with the premise that there is no space or vacuum existing in any gas, liquid or solid and there is no inherent motion of atoms.

It is generally accepted that atoms can expand or contract with absorption or emission of energy. For example the hydrogen atom in it’s ground state, it is said, can absorb energy and expand the radius of  it’s electron ‘shield’ up to five times and this increase in volume of the hydrogen atom has been shown to result from absorption of electromagnetic radiation of various wavelengths.

If it is possible for an atom to do this at this level is it not a reasonable and logical assumption that perhaps an atom can absorb a greater amount of energy from the electromagnetic spectra and store this energy in a larger force field than we have been able to detect? A field that could extend some way beyond the theoretical limit of the outer ‘electron shield’.

If this idea can for the moment be considered, it means that we would have to review our ideas about the structure of the atom and in particular about the potential size of the force field. Bearing in mind also that the dimensions of atoms have been calculated by the application of Kinetic Theory principles.

Our knowledge of atomic structure is governed by the obvious fact that that we cannot see objects this small, so our understanding , and for humans this means being able to visualise this structure, has been built up by stimulating atoms to react by, for example, using electron or scanning tunnelling microscopes, emission or absorption spectra etc. etc.. and interpreting the reactions.

These interpretations are not helped by not having a clear and unequivocal knowledge of what these stimulating forces or ‘particles’ are in the first place, which means that again these interpretations are based on assumptions.

The outer limits of the fields of the atom we assume, reasonably, to describe a sphere.
Suppose for a moment that the size of the force field was larger than currently assumed and that its energy density or potential decreased progressively from the nucleus outwards . If ‘particles’ were fired at the atom, passing through the weaker outer fields, then one can assume that little or no reaction would be registered. However, as these particles pass nearer the nucleus into the ‘orbits’ of ‘electrons’ the strength of the reaction increases, until collision with the nucleus generates an even stronger reaction. If the weak outer field generates little or no reaction then this may be why it has not been discovered or it’s dimension has been underestimated.

Consider, for example, the change of state of a liquid to a gas where there is a large expansion in volume. A large quantity of ‘latent’ energy is absorbed by the liquid in effecting this change of state and when vapourisation eventually takes place a dramatic expansion in the order of  7 times the liquid volume occurs.

This large expansion of the volume is proportional to the quantity of energy absorbed. Is it not logical therefore to suggest that this energy absorption is directly (rather than indirectly) related to this subsequent expansion?  In other words this energy is absorbed by individual atoms and translated into an expansion of the atomic force field and  consequently into the expansion of the gas as a whole

I am suggesting that atoms at any pressure contract or expand to fill the available space. The force fields of atoms in any natural state whether in a gas, liquid or a solid either would retain their spherical shape and have the weaker outer part of their force fields overlapping, or more likely would have the force fields partly compressed by the pressure of those of adjacent atoms. Either way the attractive force of the nucleus and the repulsive force, or resistance to compression, would be in balance, whatever the state or the pressure and temperature and there would be no ‘space’ or vacuum between atoms.

A reasonable analogy for this would be to fill a room full to capacity with spherical balloons and then extract the air remaining in the pockets between the balloons from the room. The balloons would then expand and fill the space and (those away from the walls, ceiling and floor) would due to the pressure of 12 contacting, and surrounding, balloons form a twelve sided equilateral shape, i.e. a regular dodecahedron having 12 pentagonal faces as shown below.

As atoms are, in natural circumstances, considered indestructible and perpetual they could also logically be considered to exert a perpetual repulsive resistance, as long as their energy level is maintained. An increase or a decrease in energy levels will correspondingly increase or decrease the repulsive force resisting foreign incursion into, and compression of, the force field, but will not alter the attractive force of the nucleus which for any given mass will remain the same.

The dense nucleus of the atom, it can be suggested, will extend it’s attractive ‘gravitational’ influence beyond the periphery of the force field and will counterbalance the resistance of the force field at all energy levels.
The repulsive force, being simply a resistance to incursion or compression of the force or rather ‘energy’ field, acts only on and within the boundaries of the field itself.

Diagram A below is a representation of a cross section of a group of atoms in any state. The six sided shapes represent the extent of each atomic force field and the concentric rings the attractive force of the nucleus. ( These six sided shapes are shown as regular for simplicity’s sake, as in a cross section of a dodecahedron in this instance they will, of course, be irregular).
A

Diagram B below shows the interlocking attractive forces of an adjoining atom.

B

Gas pressure on the inside of any container is simply maintained by the combined repulsive forces of the outer force fields of atoms on the walls of the container and each other.

The changes of state of matter according to this idea can be outlined very briefly as follows.

In a solid the atoms have relatively low energy levels and are in close proximity. The range of influence of the attractive force of the nucleus of individual atoms extends to surrounding atoms within three or more atomic diameters. The intensity of this attractive force is proportional to the distance from the nucleus. In a solid therefore the reciprocal attractive forces of all adjacent atoms on each individual atom therefore results in a very strong combined attractive force throughout.

The repulsive forces are also very strong, as these forces also increase in intensity progressively towards the nucleus.
These very strong attractive and repulsive forces, being completely in balance, in effect lock the atoms motionless in position and produce the rigidity and inflexibility which characterises most solid elements. If we postulate that there is no ‘space’ between atoms, the force fields are compressed to the shape described above.

To achieve the change of state from a solid to the liquid, energy has to be applied or introduced. The absorption of this energy builds up the energy levels of the force fields of each atom and thereby strengthens the repulsive force enabling it to increasingly resist and progressively overcome the strong combined, collective, attractive forces of the atomic nuclei.

With continuing heat input when the melting point temperature of the solid in question is reached, an large amount of ‘latent’ heat energy is then absorbed without increasing the registered temperature of the solid, which indicates that there is strong resistance to further expansion.

The reason for this, it could be suggested, is that here at this point of expansion, the attractive force of the nucleus of each atom extends in a solid to, say, two atomic diameters from each nucleus encompassing the nuclei of all the atoms within this radius. Forcing the outer layer of atoms out of the sphere of influence of each individual atom by the repulsive forces overcoming the collective attractive forces of all these atoms requires a significant additional input of energy. Once this level of energy is reached the expansion occurs relatively rapidly and the atoms expand and move further apart to the interval of the liquid state with the influence of the attractive force encompassing, say, a single level of surrounding atoms.

Here again the atoms are again in balance at the but the attractive and the repulsive forces being weaker at the larger periphery of each atomic force field frees them from their rigid or locked association and  produces the viscous but fluid state of a liquid.

A similar process occurs between the liquid and the gaseous state where an even greater amount of ‘latent’ heat is absorbed to achieve vapourisation ( some seven times that of fusion in the case of water). Here the atoms are forced into a much larger separation by an expansion of their force fields. This greater separation corresponds to a large decline in the attractive and repulsive forces at the periphery of the force fields and produces the significant reduction in viscosity of the gas state.

As stated this is a very brief outline which reflects the conclusions of the above critical analysis of Kinetic Theory. It requires development as well as serious consideration but I think it is clear that it is a sensible and logical foundation for an alternative theory of matter which, amongst other things, can very simply predict and explain the natural phenomena discussed.

Note:- This is a copy of a paper issued online on 28 February 1998

But this word is often used by theoretical physicists to describe entities that are not composed of matter, and it is used extensively by them today to explain what they are doing to the wider public.

Which explanations are of course of absolute necessity if they are to receive taxpayer funding for their work, as they can hardly use their means of inter-disciplinary communication, the ‘language’ of mathematics to, for example, persuade government departments to provide them with taxpayers money for their pet projects. And further to assure those taxpaying voters, via popular science books and magazines, that they are doing hugely important and necessary things.

So, while some will argue (correctly) that this is semantics, physicists cannot be allowed to unilaterally decide that they will attribute meanings to words simply to suit their own purposes.

The word particle (along with the word vacuum) is one of the two words which represent the basic assumptions from which the core theories of modern atomic physics have been developed.
These originate from the atomic theories of ancient Greek philosophers, who postulated a solid, indivisible spherical particle – the atom, separated by a non-material space – the vacuum.
And obviously if such particles were arranged, even in the closest possible alignment as in a box of marbles, a continuous, distinct and separating, non-material space, the vacuum, would have to exist.

And these two words, particle and vacuum, still dominate physicists thinking, examples – the positron, the neutron are sub-atomic particles, inter-planetary regions are today still described as being ‘the vacuum of space’. (Again, the word vacuum is generally used very loosely, if someone means a ‘partial vacuum’ or preferably ‘a condition of very low pressure’, they should describe it as such)

I have questioned one of these core assumptions of modern physicists, the concept of a space that is distinct from matter, but the concept of particles and the wide use of this word in discourse also needs to be examined.

Nompes

But for a moment let us leave real particles and consider the use of this word by physicists to mean the wide variety of speculative, non-material ‘particles’ (NOMPES), for example ‘virtual particles’, that are suggested to occupy inter-atomic ‘spaces’.

The first point is that such entities must ultimately have dimension, because if you take any humanly defined dimension and divide it in two and continue to divide the result, ad infinitum, a dimension of zero will never be achieved. Zero is non-existence, it is a mathematical convenience.

So whatever minuscule dimension you choose for your unique, speculative non-material ‘particles’ or nompes, if it is an entity it must have shape or form, and the most obvious one would be a sphere but, even if it did not have a regular form, if such ‘nompes’ were arranged together in the closest possible alignment, they would necessarily be partly separated by a comparably minuscule inter-nompeal ‘space’.
And then this medium would ultimately require definition, perhaps again by filling it with even smaller nompes, which process could go on, ad infinitum, further downwards to the hypothetical zero dimension, an eternal progression.

However there is one avenue that could avoid this, which is to suggest that your space-filling nompes are all platonic solids of equal dimensions, such as tetrahedra, cubes, dodecahedra. This would eliminate a rather inconvenient separating ‘space’, but would obviously produce other problems.

To return to real particles, quantum physicists say that the photon “ is neither a wave nor a particle, nor should we expect it to be”, and the electron is described by some as consisting “entirely of a structure of spherical waves whose behaviour creates their particle-like appearance” and electrons “can at times appear to us as waves, and at other times as particles. In this sense they are neither particles nor waves, in an absolute sense, but only exhibit wave or particle properties, depending on the experiment being performed.”

Presumably this would also apply to all the numerous and hypothetical ‘particles’ that are said to inhabit the atomic nucleus, so we must conclude that, at least as far as modern theoretical physics is concerned, ‘particles’, in the real meaning of the word, simply do not exist.

Most academic physicists would assert that the basis of physics today are quantum and relativity theories, but these two are acknowledged to be incompatible. And, in 80 odd years of intense endeavour in attempting to combine these into a ‘theory of everything’ (with a certain Nobel as the prize), the most brilliant mathematical physicists have completely failed.

Buckminster Fuller wrote (in ‘Utopia or Oblivion’) that from the 1930′s physicists ‘were going to work entirely in the terms of abstract, “empty set”, mathematical expressions‘ and that ‘all physical conceptual models (were) suspect‘.

And today, as a consequence, all eminent physicists are better described as mathematicians, but this purely mathematical approach has failed to advance our knowledge of the ultimate structure of matter and its interactions at macroscopic level, the most important being the transmission of the force of gravitation, and an explanation of its cause.

The focus of experimental effort in physics in the last 80 odd years has been on the sub-atomic, as it has been assumed that this would lead to explanations of all the, so far unexplained, phenomena that we are affected by, and directly or indirectly experience in the macroscopic dimension, but this has not happened.

So, if this intense, concerted and extensive mathematical approach has failed totally to bridge this gap, then the only conclusion that can logically be drawn is that some of the conceptual assumptions (with respect to the ultimate properties of the material world of our experience and of the wider universe) on which the mathematics are based, are questionable.

Accordingly, for a cause of this impasse, we need to review these assumptions and check on their validity in the light of technological advances today.

As said relativity and quantum are considered by physicists to be the base theories, but these theories were in turn developed from the assumptions on which the kinetic atomic theory of gases was founded. This therefore is the theory on which physics, and effectively all of science, is based.

The main assumptions of this atomic theory of matter are that atoms are in eternal, kinetic motion in an ‘empty space’ (which ‘space’ cannot inhibit such motion in any way), that inter-atomic gravitation ‘can be ignored’ and that the force of pressure in gases is caused by the high velocity collisions of atoms.

The assumption of an ‘empty space’ has altered over millenia, from the vacuum (when I use the word vacuum, I mean a perfect vacuum, the state of non-existence of matter) of Greek philosophers to the various, speculative descriptions of so called ‘empty space’ today, but it, of hypothetical necessity, retains its quality of zero-inertia, of non-interaction with matter.

So here we have the fundamentals on which physics today is based, the assumption that the universe consists of two separate and distinct, volumetric entities, matter, based naturally upon the atom, and a non-material space.

Applied scientists and technicians acnowledge that the vacuum state cannot be created, as it is not technically possible to extract every trace of matter from any container or compartment, or in other words to separate matter from ‘space’, or vice versa. But, apparently, the vacuum still exists, as with Frank Close (an eminent UK physicist) in his recent book ‘The Void’, who states that ‘the atom consists of one part in a trillion of matter, the rest is a perfect vacuum‘.

While the creation of ‘high vacuums’, or very low pressures, is regularly achieved in laboratories and research facilities around the world, it requires the expenditure of a large amount of energy, and such low pressures cannot be maintained for long. The main reason for this is that the materials of the apparati in contact with the low pressure gases tend to deteriorate, through such things as sublimation and out-gassing, which can contaminate the sample. So it is accordingly not possible to gain a sample and subject this hypothetical ‘empty space’ to empirical tests, but of course even if it were, it would not react to any stimuli that we could conceivably devise.

But this clear resistance, by matter alone, to non-existence, it can be said, is an empirical confirmation of Aristotle’s statement that ‘Nature abhors a vacuum‘.

So the two fundamental premises of physics are – matter, the existence of which is self-evident and unequivocal, and ‘space’, the existence of which is hypothetical, cannot be proven and which cannot be subjected to any experimental test of its supposed qualities.

Yet it seems that all scientists believe totally in the existence of the latter, to the point where it would be unthinkable to question its existence. And, it is currently and generally accepted that, it occupies a volume of the universe that would relegate the total material volume to an almost infinitely small proportion.

The problem for the science of physics with this ingrained belief is that this hypothetical volume, which is said to separate atoms, cannot, with its necessary quality of zero-inertia, transmit a force of any kind between two such atoms, and thus between any two macroscopic masses, as clearly in such circumstances the necessary actions and reactions cannot occur, and yet of course forces are observed to be transmitted in such circumstances, and universally.

As Newton wrote over three hundred years ago:-

“That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

What Newton means is that it is both mathematically and conceptually impossible to describe transmission through such a medium.

In recent decades the technology of electron microscsopy has created thousands of images of atoms in solid matter that show no sign of any separation, or of the oscillatory motion as predicted by kinetic atomic theory. As acceptance of this result is clearly difficult, various, rather weak, excuses are put forward in attempts to explain this ‘apparent continuousness‘, as Hans Christian von Baeyer puts it in his book ‘Taming the Atom’.

In an ultimate sense, we have no idea what matter is, for example there is no evidence that any quality of (what we experience as) solidity exists at the atomic and sub-atomic level, in other words there is no conclusive evidence of the existence of ‘particles’, as the word is generally understood to mean.

And if we cannot ultimately define what matter ‘is’, how can it be asserted that ultimately it is contained within specific, and minuscule, sub-atomic boundaries? I suggest that we simply cannot state with any certainty where it is, and where it isn’t, or what its extent at atomic level is.

Rutherford showed, nearly one hundred years ago, that most of the sub-atomic ‘particles’ fired at a very fine film of solid matter pass straight through, while one in 20,000 may be deviated through a large angle or even bounce back at the source. This led him to the concept of the atom as being mostly an ‘empty space’ with a solid nucleus of an unimaginable density, and that this ‘empty space’ or vacuum component allowed sub-atomic ‘particles’ to pass through it unaffected.

But this could be viewed in a different way, in that yes, the atom has a nucleus, or core, the density of which is very high, but that the nominally spherical, field of local influence projected by an atom is not a vacuum, nor is it any other hypothetical non-material medium, but consists of a matter field that progressively decreases in density with altitude from the centre.

If this were that case, ‘particles’ entering the atoms field at high altitudes above the core, and at high velocities would be passing through areas of low to very low density and thus not be diverted significantly from their course.

So the composition of an atom may not be only ‘one part in a trillion matter’, but may be totally matter, but in the sense that it does not react to human experimental probing, it is invisible matter.

This leads to the relatively recent discovery that there is a huge proportion of matter in the universe, the so called ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’, which, apart from its apparent gravitational effects, does not provide us with any indication of its existence.

So currently physicists believe that the atom is essentially ‘empty space’, and that so is the wider universe, and at the same time it is acknowledged that the vast majority, said to be 97%, of the matter of the universe is ‘invisible’, in that it does not provide us with any perceivable indication of its existence.

Just a co-incidence????

So if a large proportion of the volume of an atom does not react to stimuli, and is thus undetectable with current technology, while at the other end of the scale, a large proportion of inter-stellar or inter-galactic ‘space’ is discovered to contain a large quantity of invisible matter, which again, it is possible that these are two symptoms of the same thing

It is a fact that the transmission of forces, energy, EMR and particularly the mysterious gravitation, can only be logically described by assuming that matter is continuous and occupies the whole of the volume of the universe, and that, as Aristotle asserted ‘Nature abhors a vacuum’ and that accordingly the ultimate resistance to the creation of this state is, as is observed empirically, infinite.

It is a fact that no-one can prove that this hypothetical non-material entity exists, and some of you will reply that nor can anyone disprove its existence – to which I would respond that

1. It is observed that forces are transmitted throughout the wider universe.

2. It is observed that for a force to be transmitted the process of action and reaction has to occur.

3. The hypothetical, non-material component of the universe, by definition has the quality of zero-inertia.

4. A zero-inertia, non-material media cannot transmit the process of action and reaction between two masses.

5. It is neither mathematically nor conceptually possible to describe transmission in such circumstances.

6. Ergo, there is no such thing as a non-material space.

The macroscopic dimension, due to the focus on the sub-atomic and the cosmic, has been ignored, and there are numerous natural phenomena of immmnse importnace that cannot be described by the application of currently accepted atomic theory of the composition of macroscopic matter

The focus in the last 100 years has been on the sub-atomic and the cosmic dimensions, and it has been assumed that the sub-atomic will reveal the unexplained phenomena that are observed in the macroscopic dimension in which we exist, but this has not occurred

However this theory cannot be applied quantatively to the liquid and solid states, its predictions are inaccurate and are limited to a narrow range of pressures, it cannot describe the atomic interactions that result in numerous commonly experienced natural phenomena, such as convection.

Another example is that since Einstein’s ‘photon’ paper a great number of experiments have been, and still are being, carried out, that are in essence attempts to eliminate the wave function in double slit type apparatus. The unspoken motivation is that if the existence of particulate light were proven, a Nobel would be a certainty, and the mainstream physics community would breath a huge and collective sigh of relief. But the fact is that for all of this, successively more technically advanced, effort it has not been possible to eliminate constructive and destructive interference, and it can be stated that rather than demonstrate the particulate nature of light it has unequivocally confirmed that Thomas Young’s proof is cast iron and that light is transmitted in any circumstance as a wave.

But let us consider another example of failure.

Wave/Particle duality was introduced one hundred years ago. 100 years earlier Thomas Young and others demolished Newton’s particulate theory of light, and Einstein resurrected it with the paradoxical assumption that light could be both a wave and a particle. Why? Because he and everyone else believed that the ‘space’ beyond our atmosphere was essentially a vacuum, occupied by occasional, randomly distributed solid particles of dust dimensions and upwards. And as a wave cannot propagate through a vacuum, light needed to be ‘particulate’ in ‘space’ for the purposes of relativity theory.

Since this time innumerable experiments have been carried out, with progressively more sophisticated apparatus, that, in essence, were attempts to eliminate the wave function and thereby to prove the ‘particulate’ theory (again with a Nobel as the prize, and the eternal gratitude of the worldwide, mainstream physics community).

But to this date none of these has succeeded in this goal, interference stubbornly refuses to dissappear, even when the operators are quite certain that they are sending single photons through the apertures.

So it can be stated that, rather than prove the particulate nature of light, it has unequivocally confirmed that Thomas Young’s proof is cast iron and that light is transmitted in any circumstance as a wave. Note pulse.

So, it could be said that this belief is just a mental barrier to a description, either mathematical or conceptual, of the transmission of a force.

The only way that a force can be possibly described as being transmitted is between bodies of matter that are in contact, i.e. through and between matter that is continuous.

However this, of course, is a completely unthinkable suggestion for the current, worldwide, physics establishment, as accepting of this empirical evidence would collapse the whole facade and destroy reputations overnight, and ‘require the re-writing of physics and chemistry‘ (as Madelein Ennis commented when she found that water infused with hystamine and so diluted that, in terms of current theory, it could not contain any molecules of it, still reacted to it ).

]]> http://romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/the-trouble-with-physics/feed/ 0 http://romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/speed-of-light/ http://romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/speed-of-light/#comments Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:57:52 +0000 romun http://www.romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/?p=15 Continue reading →]]> In the formulation of Special Relativity (SRT) Einstein assumed that the atmosphere of the earth extended only to a certain altitude, and that beyond this space was a total vacuum.

“Half a century ago, (i.e. 1950′s) most people visualised our planet as a solitary sphere travelling in a cold, dark vacuum of space around the Sun.”1

Accordingly he firstly further assumed (out of sheer necessity) that light needed no medium for transmission, and secondly that, rather than it accelerating to infinity within this vacuum as some suggested, it would travel in it at a velocity as indicated by experiments using the moons of Jupiter as a yardstick, and in SRT accordingly used this as a basis for the suggestion that light speed is invariable throughout the universe.

As kinetic theory then stated that the gases at sea level were volumetrically 99.9% a vacuum, he also assumed that the velocity of light, in passing from the supposed vacuum of space, would not be inhibited by the meagre distribution of atomic matter within the earth’s atmosphere, and so the velocity here would also be c.

It is now known that a vacuum is ‘a philosophical concept with no basis in reality’2, and that in space throughout the universe there is a consistent distribution of matter at varying densities.

“Absolute vacua cannot be created or found. — for example interplanetary space is not a vacuum, but has density ρ = 10−29g.cm.−3 or 10−5 protons cm.−3. The Universe itself is not a vacuum but has various densities associated with itself -” 3

Thus it is now known that space is not a perfect vacuum, and the cosmic microwave background shows that there is a consistent distribution of matter throughout the vast regions of inter-galactic and inter-stellar spaces in the universe.

It is also now known that the atmosphere of the earth has no defined border at any altitude.

‘The sun too has an atmosphere, and because the sun accounts for more than nine tenths of the total mass of the solar system, its atmosphere is much larger than that of any planet. The solar atmosphere extends far beyond the orbit of the earth, and at 80,000 Km our atmosphere merges imperceptibly with that of the sun.’4

The atmosphere of the earth varies in density in proportion to altitude and the only conclusion that can be drawn from this fact is that, contrary to the currently accepted base theory of physics, i.e. the kinetic theory of gases, this variation is due to the earth’s gravitational field.

Of course the solar atmosphere is of much lower densities than that of our experience, while its elemental, atomic composition is not precisely known and is the subject of speculation, but it is a consistent distribution of matter, and the density at any point in the solar system is dependent upon the particular altitude from, and the gravitational forces of, the sun and of one or more of the massive bodies, planetary or otherwise that are part of it.

Accordingly it must be assumed that, as the force of gravitation permeates the whole of the universe, the matter between the stars, and between clouds of matter and galaxies, is influenced by this force, so that the densities vary in accordance with the relative strength of the gravitational field.

Therefore it is inconceivable that the gravitational field projected by the huge masses of galaxies do not influence the matter surrounding it, such that it can be described as a galactic atmosphere, and that the density of this matter varies in accordance with altitude from a galaxy’s centre.

It is also now accepted that the speed of light ‘in atmosphere is 3% less than in vacuo’5. (Note that ‘in vacuo’ here is incorrect, as in this context it does not mean in a perfect vacuum, it means ‘as measured within the solar system’, or alternatively that observed in ‘high’ vacuum experiments here on earth.)

Let us be quite clear what this means, it means that the velocity of light from anywhere outside earth, measured at the earth’s surface, has been reduced by the progressively increasing densities of the atmosphere.

This is in full agreement with experiment, for example where it is observed that light in passing from gases into liquids and transparent solids is reduced in velocity, and that on emerging from these it immediately regains its original velocity. Therefore the velocity of light is unequivocally proven to depend on the density of the transmitting media.

Finally, as the distribution of matter is consistent throughout the universe and as the vacuum does not exist, the conditions for light to travel at c do not exist.

“If one considers the propagation of light the speed c is its speed of propagation in a vacuum, as discussed above; there is never an absolute vacuum so that light never propagates at c.” 6

The only circumstance where light would travel at a constant velocity would be through matter which is of a perfectly consistent density, such as could possibly be the case with a high quality glass, or any other other pure, transparent solid or stable liquid.

So, contrary to the beliefs, or assumptions, of Einstein around 1900, the vacuum does not exist and space is not a vacuum, the speed of light is affected by the earth’s atmosphere, light never propagates at c, and the earth’s atmosphere extends out to and blends into the atmosphere of the sun, in other words the main assumptions on which SRT was based are now known to be false.

So if the speed of light is dependent on the density of matter, and if matter is distributed consistently throughout the universe at varying densities, then the speed of light in the universe is not invariable, but instead travels at a variable velocity that is fully dependent on the densities of the matter through which it is passing.

As mentioned SRT asserts that light needs no medium for transmission and travels at a constant velocity, and that for the Doppler effect only the relative difference in velocity between the observer and the source needs to be considered. So that, on this basis, the conclusion drawn from the analysis of light from distant galaxies was that the observed red shift indicated that such galaxies were moving away at a significant velocity. It was further concluded that, as the majority of galaxies produced a red shift, then they were all moving away from ours, and that accordingly the universe was expanding in all directions. Which conclusion in turn led to the big bang concept.

As the velocity of light is regulated by the density of the matter through which it is passing, then it follows that matter is necessary for its transmission, and so the assumption of Einstein, (and the currently accepted scientific dogma) that matter has no effect on the velocity of light (in these circumstances), or that it is not a necessary component for its transmission is clearly false.

So, if the velocity of light is dependent on the density of matter universally, then we can interpret the propagation of light and the red shift phenomena in a different way, as follows:-

All light leaving Galaxy A that is in the vicinity of our ‘Milky Way’ galaxy is generated by the stars and the matter within it, and will be regulated by the atmosphere of this galaxy so that is has about the same velocity at any (external) altitude from its centre, and, as light moves out from the galaxy, it encounters progressively lower densities and its velocity increases accordingly.

It continues to accelerate until the point of gravitational neutrality about halfway between Galaxy A and ours (Galaxy M in the Figure 1 below, where the red line indicates the variations in velocity of a direct ray of light from A to M, and the blue shading the galactic atmospheres), at which point it reaches its maximum velocity. It now progressively decelerates in accordance with the increasing densities that it encounters in the atmosphere of the Milky Way.

If we were able to analyse the light at the mid-point its wavelength would obviously be shifted to the blue end, and from this mid-point to a similar altitude from M, the progressive reduction in velocity will have the opposite effect on its wavelength in in shifting back towards the red end.

Figure 1

Naturally at equivalent altitudes and densities above each galaxy (that are of a similar magnitude and are not moving relative to each other) these effects would simply cancel each other out and there would be no red or blue shift at this point.

But from this point to earth the density of matter increases progressively and substantially, which would have the effect of reducing the velocity and shifting it to the red end of the spectrum. However in the case of galaxies that are in the vicinity of ours, the light emerging from these is emitted from individual stars within them, so the light from these will be subject to a decreasing density, which, again, will serve to cancel out the effect at our end.

Galaxies that exhibit a red shift are those at the outer (visual)  limits of the universe, and in these cases the light has been in transit for ten billion years or more. In this long passage the light has been subject to numerous fluctuations in velocity caused by the variations in density in the gravitational fields of intervening clouds of matter, galaxies and clusters of galaxies, the end result of which would I suggest be a modulation of this light so that it would appear to be from a single source. In this case the light reaching the outer limits of our galaxy would be subject to an additional reduction in velocity through to the solar system, as indicated in Figure 2 below that in turn would result in a redshift when observed on earth.

Figure 2

This would suggest that red shifts registered here on earth are not be a reliable indication of the relative motion of two galaxies, and that the hypothesis of a continually expanding universe, and the ‘big bang’ origin of it, is false.

It is relevant to note that Edwin Hubble, whose observations of redshifts of distant galaxies led to these theories, in this respect said that “expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results”

1 ‘The Sun From Space’, Kenneth R Lang, Springer-Verlag, 2000.

2 Wikipedia, Vacuum

3 http://www.scribd.com/doc/3713939/Roberts-Vacuum-Energy-3rd-vs-167pp

4 ‘Elements: Air – The Nature of Atmosphere and Climate’ Michael Allaby, Facts on File Inc. NY, 1992

5 Encarta

6 http://www.scribd.com/doc/3713939/Roberts-Vacuum-Energy-3rd-vs-167pp

The historical origins of this concept of the separation of atoms by a volume of ‘empty space’ go back to Greek philosophers of around 2500 years ago, who invented the vacuum in order to be able to explain the fluidity of air and water with their ‘billiard ball’ type atoms.

In 1644 Torricelli was generally assumed to have created a perfect vacuum in his experiments with mercury, which contradicted the then generally accepted Aristotelian wisdom that this state was not possible in any circumstance. It can be no coincidence therefore that three years later, in 1647, Gassendi resurrected Democritus’ ‘kinetic’ atomic theory, which was dependent on its existence.

When Torricelli’s apparatus was later shown by Pascal to be an indicator of atmospheric pressure, this “supported the belief that the atmosphere is only a thin layer surrounding the earth, and that outer space is empty” (2). This belief of space as essentially a vacuum perpetuated until the mid 1900′s – “Half a century ago, most people visualised our planet as a solitary sphere traveling in a cold, dark vacuum of space around the Sun.” (3)

The possibility of the existence of the state of a perfect vacuum was vigorously contested, particularly in the 19th century by proponents of a zero-inertia medium occupying space that allowed the transmission of wave formations such as that of light, but this concept of a ‘luminiferous aether’ was finally put to ‘a scientific’ rest by Einstein who pronounced it superfluous.

Kinetic atomic theory was refined and developed by such people as Bernoulli through to Clerk Maxwell and on into the 20th century, to a general acceptance that was strongly influenced by Einstein’s paper on the phenomenon of Brownian Motion.

Thus in the first half of the last century scientists generally believed that outer space was essentially a perfect vacuum, and that this vacuum permeated down into the atmosphere and separated atomic matter in all states. Accordingly the two fundamental theories of modern physics, relativity and quantum, were originally formulated on the basis of the existence of a perfect vacuum in these circumstances.

The concept of space as a vacuum persisted until the manned exploration of near space after which it emerged that ‘The NASA Space Shuttle at 250- 300 Km altitudes ‘in space’ was found to be in air, with the same proportions of oxygen and nitrogen as at sea level, at a concentration of 1 billion atoms per cc compared to 3 x 10[19] per cc at sea level. Thus in no sense could it be called a vacuum.

The sun too has an atmosphere, and because the sun accounts for more than nine tenths of the total mass of the solar system, its atmosphere is much larger than that of any planet. The solar atmosphere extends far beyond the orbit of the earth, and at 80,000 Km our atmosphere merges imperceptibly with that of the sun.’ (4)

Further it has been estimated that ‘In certain regions of outer space — there are (approximately 5 atoms) per cubic centimetre.’ (5) and it is now clear that there is a consistent distribution of matter, at varying densities and pressures, throughout the universe.

Thus it is realised that outer space is not a perfect vacuum, and it is now generally accepted that a perfect vacuum ‘is a philosophical concept with no physical reality’, and further that in macroscopic matter ‘the space between molecules is not a perfect vacuum’6. In addition, it is accepted by applied scientists and technicians, that this hypothetical component of macroscopic matter cannot be isolated in the laboratory. (And of course Torricelli’s ‘vacuum’ was not a perfect one, but contained mercury vapour ‘boiled’ off in the low pressure created by the weight of the column of liquid mercury)

But the postulates of kinetic theory remain in place as the basis of current atomic theory, in that atoms and molecules of macroscopic matter are in eternal motion in a non-material volume of ‘empty space’, and that the force of pressure is a result of their high velocity collisions.

It is significant however that when the assumptions on which the theory of discontinuous matter is based are listed today, this predominant volumetric component is not defined, and is only indirectly referred to, as for a gas ‘the total volume of (atomic matter) is negligible compared to the volume of the container’. It can therefore only be described in terms of the characteristics that, by definition, it does not possess, which are that it cannot inhibit the kinetic motion of atomic matter within it and thus cannot, of itself, exert any force upon matter.

Clerk Maxwell’s 1859 Laws of Distribution of Velocities was the first statistical law of physics and since then the kinetic atomic theory of gases has been utilised as means of determining, albeit approximately and within a limited range, the variations of pressure, volume and temperature in gases.

When technological advances later provided the means, for example to subject gases to pressures sufficient to convert them to the liquid state, successive modifications, such as the Van der Waals Equations of State, were necessary to adapt it to phenomena that in some cases flatly contradicted the original postulates. And it is significant to note that it has not been possible to formulate statistical laws that can be applied to the liquid and solid states of matter.

Apart from the variations of pressure and volume in gases, collision theory has not been successful in providing comprehensible, conceptual explanations for the atomic interactions that generate, or influence, other natural phenomena in this state, such as thermal conductivity, diffusion and convection. This latter example is confirmed by the complete absence of any description, in any standard textbook on physics, old or new, advanced or otherwise, of the causal atomic/molecular interactions that result in this fundamentally important thermal transport.

But there is one phenomenon that is patently inexplicable in these terms, and this is the transfer of oxygen from the air into the blood during human and mammalian respiration.

The atmosphere consists mainly of nitrogen and oxygen in the ratios of about 78% and 21% respectively, and the time taken for the process of inhalation to exhalation in humans is generally between 1 and 3 seconds, dependent on the rate of physical exertion. In this period around one third of the proportion of oxygen in the air that is that is drawn into the lungs is absorbed. The transfer takes place in the millions of tiny, balloon like, alveolar sacs, the internal surfaces of which (the alveolar membranes), are covered with a liquid surfactant into which oxygen dissolves, and from which it passes through the membrane and attaches to the hemoglobin in the blood.

As the diffusion of atomic matter in gases is observed to be a relatively slow process, for a third of the available oxygen to be absorbed in a short period (of less than a second under a high level of physical exertion), it is necessary for the vast majority of the oxygen molecules that come into contact with the surfactant to be absorbed, and, in order that a level of pressure is maintained on the internal surfaces of the alveoli, it is also necessary that most of the nitrogen molecules are not.

The atomic masses of oxygen and nitrogen are only marginally different at 16 and 14, and kinetic theory suggests that their average kinetic velocities are proportional, (which means that they often are traveling at similar velocities) and that ‘collisions with the walls of a container are assumed to be instantaneous and elastic’.

As it is at the surface of the surfactant where both oxygen is absorbed and a pressure is maintained, it is inconceivable that an oxygen molecule can be identified and accepted in an instantaneous, high velocity collision with this surface, while in the same time a majority of the nitrogen molecules in collisions are identified and repulsed.

So while collision theory cannot by any means explain the fundamentally important, physiological phenomenon of the absorption of oxygen in the process of human respiration, the relatively obscure Brownian Motion is generally accepted as being a manifestation of the effects of the collisions of molecules with minute particles of matter (such as pollen grains) and a visual proof of the kinetic motion of atoms. Successive experiments (with e.g ‘molecular beam’ apparati) have been carried out since 1859 attempting to prove the theory of a kinetic motion of atoms, but none of these (which were both set up and analysed on the basis of the assumptions of the theory) can be said to provide an unequivocal proof of an inherent and eternal motion of individual atoms.

The perfect vacuum of the early 1900′s has today been ‘reclassified’ into a zero-inertia medium ‘that is not a vacuum’, and which is essentially a resurrection of the 19th century aether rejected as ‘superfluous’ by Einstein.

Isaac Newton wrote over 300 years ago : -

“That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe that no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

In other words it is not possible, either conceptually or mathematically, to describe how a force is transmitted between two masses of any dimension through a perfect vacuum, or alternatively through any hypothetical medium that has a characteristic of zero-inertia.

Yet this is what the theory of discontinuous matter, by default, suggests must be possible. The theory states that in solid matter the individual atoms are vibrating in a fixed volume of space (in a lattice formation) and can only exert a positive force on adjacent atoms by means of random (near) collisions, and further that the ‘interactions between molecules are negligible’ and ‘gravitational forces can be ignored’ (7).

However it is observed that the gravitational force generated by any massive body is exerted consistently in all directions from its centre of mass/gravity, and it is also observed that the force exerted is proportional to the total mass of the body. Since the total mass of the body is the sum total of the masses of all the atoms of which it is composed, and, as gravity is a function of mass, then the total gravitational force exerted by the massive body can only be the sum of the individual gravitational forces of these atoms.

Therefore it follows that, for the observed transmission of this sum force of gravitation to be effected externally, there can be no other conclusion drawn than that each atom must exert, in all directions from its centre, a gravitational force upon each of the adjacent atoms, and that the force exerted externally is the cumulative total of the individual forces generated by each of the component atoms.

Clearly if gravitational forces are being transmitted from atom to atom then, in these circumstances any individual, random motion could not be sustained indefinitely. Also, if such a motion of atoms in a volume of empty space existed, then STM probes (which pass slowly back and forth over the atoms on the surface of the target materials) would obviously not produce the typical, distinctly hemispherical images generally available. This is highlighted by the images of platinum atoms shown in Figure 1 below, where there is no sign of any separation, but rather the existence of clearly defined borders with adjacent atoms.

Figure 1

Issac Newton suggested that atoms are not in constant motion and discontinuous but are ‘static’ and continuous, and that the force of pressure is a result of atoms ‘pressing’ on surrounding atoms. In this model pressure variations are due to the atoms expanding or contracting with absorption or emission of thermal energy.

This concept can be tested on the problem of respiration discussed earlier, where in the fully homogeneous mixture of atmospheric gases one in five of atoms is oxygen, and where this proportion will always be in close contact with the surfactant of the alveoli during inhalation. In such circumstances it is far easier to accept that the different chemical characteristics of the reactant element oxygen (vis a vis the inert nitrogen) could be recognised, so that the observed percentage could be absorbed in a minimum period of around half a second that would be available at a high level of physical exertion.

Returning to gravitation, the atoms of a ‘kinetic’ gas can only exert a repulsive force by means of high velocity collisions with other atoms as in the case of the single atom depicted in Figure 2A below (8) between two metal rod ends. But, as the force of gravitation is transmitted through gases, if atoms cannot transmit this attractive force (as represented by the arrows) then it must pass through the intervening zero-inertia, non-material ‘empty space’, but this, as discussed, is not by any means possible.

However if Newton’s concept is applied to this situation, and it is reasonably assumed that atoms, having mass, exert a attractive force in all directions in accordance with his law of universal gravitation, it can be seen that this force can be transmitted between the two bodies via intervening static atoms, as shown in Figure 2B where the (idealised) single gas atom shown has a optimal radius of 12 times (representing a volume of about 1500 times) that of the atoms of the metal. This atom is subjected to all of the attractive forces of the adjacent atoms at the surfaces of both bodies, and, being strongly attracted to both masses, is the medium for the transmission of attractive forces between them.

If static atoms exert a gravitational force in all directions on adjacent atoms then the observed expansion of macroscopic matter with the absorption of thermal energy can only be caused by an expansion of their individual fields of influence (and of their centres to greater separations) in opposition to this attractive force.

A static atom would therefore exert both an attractive gravitational force and a force of resistance to incursion into its field of influence by the fields of adjacent atoms. In other words, acting at the outer peripheries of its energy field, each atom is repulsing the fields of the adjacent atoms and thereby also exerting a force of pressure in all directions.

If one of the masses depicted above is now removed the effect upon this single atom can be examined as per the diagrams below, and at this point we need to consider the repulsive forces of the force field as well.

In Figure 3A the repulsive forces are depicted as being equal in all directions, but the strong attractive forces of the atoms of the rod end will force the gas atom’s nucleus into a closer proximity as in Figure 3B.

In the proximity of the nucleus both the attractive and the repulsive forces increase proportionately in the direction of the rod end and, as the force field will resist a reduction in volume without emitting energy, these forces will tend to distort the outer force field in the manner shown.

If another atom is placed alongside the first as shown in Figure 3C then clearly the (relatively weaker) attraction of the nucleus of this atom to the first and to the rod end, will tend to distort both its and the second atom’s force field as shown, and further distort the field of the first in the directions X and Y.

The addition of more atoms in line will have a similar and progressively diminishing effect on all the atoms concerned and so if the second rod is replaced and the gap is widened to allow seven atoms of gas to intercede the configuration will be as in Fig 4 below. The result is that the outer force fields of all the intermediary atoms are distorted to varying degrees by the variations in the forces experienced by the two rods pulling each one in two directions, the central atom A will experience an equal attraction from both rod ends, which means that this atom is itself exerting an attractive force on both rod ends, which of course will also apply to all the other intervening atoms.

The nucleus (or the centre of mass/gravity) of this central atom A in the figure below, is experiencing an equal attraction from atoms B and C, and the net effect of the greater gravitational attraction of both rod ends on the nuclei of these two atoms is to pull the centres away from atom A. This translates into forces acting on the outer periphery of atom A’s energy field at the intersection between it and atoms B and C, which is in effect pulling the outer perimeter of the field away from atom A’s nucleus in the direction of B and C, as indicated by the dashed arrows, and accordingly tending to elongate the field in these directions.

This introduction of other adjacent atoms into this arrangement introduces another factor as indicated in the diagram below.

The combined attractive forces of both rods acting on the nuclei of atoms Y and Z adjacent to atom A, indicated by the dashed arrows, introduce an additional force of pressure acting in the overall direction shown by the intersecting arrows pointing vertically downwards.

This force results in an increase in the repulsive forces acting on atom A from this direction and, together with the gravitational forces described above, adds to the tendency to elongate this atom laterally. This atom is therefore in a state of disequilibrium with adjacent atoms due to the gravitational forces of attraction of the rod ends, and will be attempting to regain equilibrium.

The effect of this is to produce pressure differentials as outlined below, where the distortion of the atomic force fields leads to the formation of pressure gradients as indicated by the dashed lines.

Extending this concept again with two larger massive bodies in Figure 8 below it is clear that their combined attractive forces acting on atom D are less than those on atoms B and C, which forces are less than those acting on atom A. While the massive bodies remain in this position, all the gas atoms in this area will be maintained in a state of non-equilibrium with the surrounding atoms outside the area of influence.

Also, whilst the forces acting on A tend to pull this directly towards both faces of the massive bodies, the forces acting on C tend to pull it at the angles as indicated, which forces combine to produce a force acting in the direction of A at the centre, and the same will apply to atoms further out (Atom D). It will be obvious that the combination of all these forces will produce pressure gradients similar to those in the diagram below.

All matter attracts other matter according to Newton’s laws and therefore all solid matter, being of greater density than the surrounding gaseous matter, will attract the atoms of these gases, so that denser layers will form near to the surfaces of the solid, which density will progressively reduce in proportion to separation from it, in the same manner as the gases of the earth’s atmosphere.

Thus an area of relative low pressure (shaded) is created in the space between the two rod ends and the atoms within this area are being decompressed relative to those under a compressive force in the near vicinity of the surface, as well as in comparison with those laterally some distance away. This enhances the gravitational forces of attraction transmitted via the intervening atoms, in inducing a motion of the rod ends towards each other, in other words a lower pressure is maintained here that would have the effect of pulling them into a closer association.

It is important to note here that atoms in the low-pressure area will be subject to decompressive forces while those in contact with the metal and in its vicinity will be under relative compression and that these atoms, as a result of these forces, will accordingly be attempting either to absorb or emit energy from and to their adjacent atoms.

The net result of this will be an overall tendency for the transmission of thermal energy from the gas outside of the area of influence into the atoms within it, as indicated in figure 9. (9)

Thus while the rods remain in place the forces of compression and of decompression continue to act upon the atoms of the intervening gases and the state of non-equilibrium in these gases will also remain.

Of course the effects of these various forces on the intervening gases between masses of this dimension are so minute that measuring them is not possible by means of current technology and, where other forces dominate, in particular here the strong gravitational field of the earth, these forces have no discernible effect, however the application of these combined forces for larger masses of celestial dimensions are of immense importance.

With respect to the problem of fluidity that concerned the ancient Greeks, if it is logically assumed that atoms having mass exert a gravitational force upon adjacent atoms in accordance with Newton’s laws, then it would be apparent that frictional forces resulting from the stronger gravitational and repulsive forces acting at the outer peripheries of the energy fields between atoms in the close confines of the solid state would progressively reduce with expansion. So that in the gaseous state these forces would be reduced to the extent that other external forces such as convection would be sufficient to move individual atoms into different positions and associations.

Celestial Gravitation

This concept can now be applied to larger bodies, such as the attraction between the earth and the moon, where the total force of mutual attraction needed to maintain it in its orbit around the earth is obviously enormous.

As discussed earlier, it is now accepted that the atmosphere of earth extends to and merges with that of the sun at about 80,000 km. Thus there is an ‘atmosphere’ occupying all the vast space between the orbit of the earth and the sun. By atmosphere in this context, I mean there is a continuity of matter in the form of gaseous atoms.

Of course the density of these gases is proportionate to their altitude from the sun and from the earth and accordingly their average density is significantly lower than gases at the earth’s surface.

Thus the sun and all the planets including the earth and the moon are connected by mutual atmosphere, which of course is mainly the sun’s atmosphere, with local gravitational variations or influences.

In this respect when it is said that the earth’s atmosphere extends to 80,000 km, what is meant is that the gravitational influence of the earth, in the direction of the sun, is the dominant force on the gaseous matter to this altitude, whereupon at a higher altitude the gravitational influence of the sun is then predominant.

Clearly the earth, in rotating on its axis and orbiting the sun, is moving through the suns atmosphere of gas, as it has always done, and this solar atmosphere has obviously had no serious effect on the earth’s atmosphere at the surface on which our lives depend. (e.g. Such as the historical concern that frictional forces could remove the earth’s atmosphere.)

So between the earth and the moon there are gases that vary in density with altitude from both bodies, and from the surface of the earth to the surface of the moon there is always a continuous volume of atoms that are directly affected by the gravitational attraction of both bodies. The density of this gaseous matter varies in line with the intensity of the gravitational forces exerted by the masses of both.

So it can be suggested that if a single atom of nitrogen positioned at the earth’s surface is heated directly or indirectly by the sun and is surrounded by gases that have not absorbed the same energy, it will expand and rise convectively and will ultimately arrive at a higher altitude where it is in a state of equilibrium with atoms of the same energy level and density.

To induce this atom to continue to rise it would need a continuing and progressive input of energy. Accordingly let us suppose that energy is applied to this atom, in order to allow it to expand and continue to rise naturally to, say, 300 km above the earth’s surface, then it is clear that it would need to absorb a considerable amount of energy to cause it to rise to this altitude. Thus it follows that the energy level per atom of the low pressure and low density gases that exist at this altitude is far greater than that of the gases at the earth’s surface.

If again energy is supplied specifically to this atom so that it can progressively expand, it will move further and further from the earth towards the moon until the point of gravitational neutrality between the earth and the moon is reached, which point is also the point of lowest density of the intervening gaseous matter.

All this is not remarkable, as it is precisely this characteristic of gases that is used to raise hot air balloons to high altitudes.

On the other hand it is also clear that if this atom was physically moved further out into the space between the earth and the moon, subjecting it to lower pressures but without ‘artificially’ imparting thermal energy to it, expansion in these circumstances will only occur with an absorption of energy, which in these circumstances could only be supplied by the surrounding gaseous matter.

The effect of the moon’s gravitational forces acting on the earth is observed twice each day with oceanic tidal fluctuations, which are caused by the ocean surface being ‘pulled’ upwards in opposition to the earth’s gravity towards the moon and away from its normal position of the level governed by the earth’s gravitation alone. (10)

These forces distort the entire atmosphere between the earth and the moon, resulting in ‘atmospheric’ tides in the atmospheres of both bodies, however the tides of the moon’s thin atmosphere, being subject to the greater attraction of the earth, are proportionately larger in dimension. Figure 10 indicates the distortions of arbitrary layers of the atmospheres surrounding the earth and the moon.11

The mean radius of the orbit of the moon about the earth is 385,000 Km, the diameter of the earth is about 12,750 Km and that of the moon about 3475 Km. Figure 11 depicts the cone of the direct gravitational influence between the earth and the moon, and the point where lines drawn from opposing sides of each body intersect is about 200,000 km from the earth, while the volume of this cone is about 26 trillion cubic Km.

All the atoms within this cone are being pulled in both directions by the gravitational forces of the earth and the moon. These atoms are therefore experiencing the similar stresses to the central atom in Figures 4 and 5, and also effectively transmitting the attractive gravitational forces of the earth and the moon via the intermediary atoms. Thus the atoms here, like the atoms in the previous examples, are being stretched by the gravitational forces of both bodies acting to pull them in opposite directions.

The other factor which modifies this effect, as outlined earlier, are the lateral forces of gravitational attraction acting on the matter outside the direct cone of attraction between the earth and the moon, which these forces tend to modify the total volume under relative decompression as indicated below.

The arrow from point G shows the forces generated by the combined attractive forces of both bodies acting on the matter outside the direct cone of influence, which, combined with the same forces inside the cone, result in the pressure gradients, indicated by the dashed curves.

These pressure gradients give an indication of the total volume of the gases subjected to relative decompression within the area of mutual attraction represented by the shaded area.

However this situation is of course not static and the motion of the moon in its orbit about the earth brings in another factor.

Lunar Motion

The diameter of the moon subtends an angle of about 0.6º at the earth; its hourly movement in relation to the earth is about 0.5º of arc. Thus the diagram below shows the approximate hourly lateral movement of the moon as seen from the earth.

If we consider a cross sectional disk of the cone as described in Figure 11 above at a distance of 200,000 Km from the earth, the radius of this disk is 2678 kilometres and its area is 22.5 million square kilometres as shown below.

This disk therefore is displaced each hour and ten minutes by about one diameter and the cone at this point affects a completely new volume of the solar atmosphere every hour and ten minutes. So the moons motion is continually and progressively changing the gases that occupy the cone of gravitational influence and the atoms within it have only a limited period of time to absorb energy in order to restore a level of relative equilibrium.

However the only way that they can expand is by absorbing energy and the nearest source of energy is the adjacent atoms that are subjected to almost identical stress. For the atoms at the centre of this disk to attain a state of relative equilibrium thermal energy must be transferred atom to atom from outside the direct cone of influence, and as it is observed that the transmission of the force of pressure is considerably faster than the transmission of thermal energy, it is clear that the thermal diffusion of energy over this distance of more than 2600 kilometres would not occur within the time scale set by the moons orbital motion, even if ‘surplus’ energy were readily available.

If no expansion is possible, then, while the relatively weak forces of inter-atomic attraction and repulsion still play a role, other forces come into consideration.

The Force of Resistance to Decompression

Matter expands with absorption of heat and contracts with emission of heat, thus expansion of a volume of gaseous matter results in both a reduction in density and an absorption of energy, which means that the energy content of the gas per atom has increased. In other words, if a gas is induced to absorb energy, either by heating or by subjecting it to a lower pressure, its density decreases in proportion to the increase in energy content per atom, however in the latter instance if no external thermal energy is available for transfer into the gas expansion cannot occur, which effect can be described as the ‘force of resistance to decompression’.

There are machines in regular use today that compress gases to many hundreds of times atmospheric pressure, and more sophisticated machines can apply compressions of hundreds of thousands of times that of atmospheric pressure.

Normally the only external force that can oppose the expansion of an enclosed volume of gas is atmospheric pressure and clearly this relatively minuscule force can easily be overcome by a low powered machine, but it is an observed fact that the force required to expand a gas increases exponentially to the point where, in practice (for example in a cylinder/piston apparatus) the integrity of the weaker materials (usually those that are in the vicinity of the enclosed gas) of the apparatus fail, and it is clear that the external atmospheric pressure is not the main cause of such failures. As stated it is acknowledged that it is not by any means possible to create a perfect vacuum and the exponential increase in force necessary for expansion of a gas suggests that in a hypothetically perfect apparatus this force would increase to the infinite.

Given the base assumptions of current atomic theory, in that a predominate volume of ‘empty space’ separates gaseous atomic matter, which space by definition cannot resist its own expansion, and further that the atoms within this ‘empty space’ can only apply a positive force by means of random collisions, this phenomenon is inexplicable.

The Force of Resistance to the Vacuum State

With the concept of static atoms, if the vacuum state were possible, then the point where this would be most likely to occur is where the attractive and repulsive forces of the atom are the weakest, which would be at the intersection of the force fields of three (or more) atoms as shown as in Fig. 15A below. And if it were not possible then clearly the atoms would experience another force on their outer force fields that would have the effect as depicted by the arrows in Fig. 15B.

This would be an ‘external’ force that would tend to pull the field of each atom in the direction of the other two atoms, this force is the ‘Force of Resistance to the Vacuum State’. Such a force simply explains why the external force needed to progressively expand gases rises exponentially, and why the expansion of matter is not possible, in any circumstance, without the absorption of energy into the matter itself.

Relating this to the attraction between the earth and the moon, the central atom in the figure below represents any atom in the volume of gases separating them. This atom is being attracted in both directions and is therefore experiencing forces of attraction pulling it in both directions, the overall effect of which is expansive.

This state of disequilibrium can only be relieved either by the removal of the gravitational forces or alternatively by the absorption of energy into its field laterally from adjacent atoms. The only other hypothetical option is for them to move apart and create a vacuum state between them, but as this state is not possible the outer perimeters of the atoms are held together as indicated by the smaller arrows between atoms A, B and C, which force, ‘the force of resistance to the state of vacuum’, acts at the outer peripheries of the energy fields of the atoms and prevents their separation.

However in the period while this individual atom is under the direct gravitational influence of these two celestial bodies, as no ‘spare’ thermal energy is available to allow its expansion in these circumstances, it is therefore exerting reciprocally attractive forces precisely equivalent to those exerted upon it by the earth and by the moon. In other words it is exerting an immeasurably minute force of attraction on both the earth and the moon proportional to its own mass.

But it is the cumulative effect of the immense number of individual atomic gravitational forces acting atom to atom within the volume of over 20 trillion cubic kilometres of gas affected by the mutually attractive forces between the earth and the moon that must be considered. Clearly these cumulative and reciprocal forces acting on the earth and the moon can produce the centripetal force necessary to hold the mass of the moon in its orbit around the earth.

Thus Newton’s static model of atomic interactions can provide for a logical and sensible, and relatively simple, conceptual description of the transmission of the force of gravitation, the laws of which he formulated over 300 years ago.

(1) Taming the Atom’, Hans Christian Von Baeyer, Dover, 2000

(2) The History and Philosophy of Science’, LWH Hull, Longmans – Green, 1959, Page 157.

(3) ‘The Sun From Space’, Kenneth R Lang, Tufts University, 2000

(4) ‘Elements: Air – The Nature of Atmosphere and Climate’ Michael Allaby, Facts on File Inc. NY, 1992

(5) J D Cutnell, K W Johnson , Physics, 3rd Edition. New York: Wiley, 1995:441

(6) Wikipedia

(7) Various Advanced Physics Textbooks

(8) This and all subsequent diagrams, being restricted to two dimensions, cannot be, and are not intended to be, accurate depictions of the actual spacial relationships of atomic matter.

(9) In an environment where there is no external disturbance of the intervening gases, such a transfer of energy will ultimately ensue, thus reducing the attractive forces that are due to this effect and leaving only the gravitational forces, however in normal circumstances where there are more powerful external forces acting upon and disturbing the intervening gas, combined with the observed slow diffusion, or inter-atomic transfer, of thermal energy this imbalance will generally be sustained.

(10) The distortion of the surface of the sea in the middle of the oceans due to this effect is only a matter of a metre or so, but this relatively small effect is often magnified in coastal areas by features such as the English Channel, where a funnelling effect increases the magnitude of the tides experienced in this area by a considerable margin.

It was the general belief of scientists at this time that the Michelson and Morley experiments on the velocity of light in the 1880’s were a confirmation of the, then long-held assumption of many scientists, that the atmospheric matter of the earth extended to a certain (undefined) altitude whereupon the pure vacuum of space began.

In the last century however, as a result of balloon experiments, high altitude flights and latterly space exploration, our knowledge of the composition, the characteristics and extent of the earth’s atmosphere has improved considerably and it is now known that there is no definitive point or border that divides the atmosphere of earth from the matter that exists in the space between the earth and the sun. Aside from a difference in composition, there is a progressive reduction in density between the gases at the earth’s surface and those in space thousands of kilometres from the surface, and the atmosphere of the earth extends well out into space and merges with the atmosphere of the sun.

‘The NASA Space Shuttle at 250- 300 Km altitudes ‘in space’ was found to be in air, with the same proportions of oxygen and nitrogen as at sea level, at a concentration of 1 billion atoms per cc compared to 3 x 1019 per cc at sea level. – Thus in no sense could it be called a vacuum’.

‘The sun too has an atmosphere, and because the sun accounts for more than nine tenths of the total mass of the solar system, its atmosphere is much larger than that of any planet. – The solar atmosphere extends far beyond the orbit of the earth, and at 80,000 Km our atmosphere merges imperceptibly with that of the sun’. (1)

The resurrection in the early 1900’s of Newton’s concept of light as particulate (the photon), led to the assumption and the prediction by Einstein that light, in passing through a strong gravitational field, would be deflected by it.

The Royal Society of London sent out two expeditions to observe the 1919 eclipse of the sun. One to Sobral in Brazil and one to the island of Principe, off West Africa, and the latter was led by Sir Arthur Eddington, who was an enthusiastic supporter of the new relativity theories.

Photographic plates were exposed at the time of the eclipse in both places and later analysis showed that the position of a star that was near to the suns surface was shown to deviate from its true position by about 1.6” (seconds of arc) in Principe and 2” in Sobral. Eddington interpreted these results as confirming Einstein’s prediction of a deflection of 1.74”.

The refractive effect of the passage of light through different layers of density in the earth’s atmosphere was well known then to both navigators and astronomers.

The figure below is a representation of that in the Admiralty Manual Of Navigation, 1954 and shows a ray of light from body X being refracted(2) by layers of air of increasing density so that its position is viewed as being at X’.

Eddington considered the possibility of gases surrounding the sun having a similar effect and accordingly worked out what would be the necessary density to produce the required refractive index, but concluded: – ‘It seems obvious that there can be no material of this order of density at such a distance (an altitude of 400,000 miles) from the sun’ (3).

In other words he made an assumption, based upon the beliefs current at this time, that at this altitude above the sun no atmosphere or gaseous matter existed that would have any refractive effect on the passage of light and accordingly made no allowance whatever for such an effect.

I would suggest that it is now obvious that the density of the suns atmosphere, like the earth’s, is inversely proportional to altitude, and that accordingly in these circumstances there is no question that light, emitted from an object whose physical direction is in the near vicinity of the sun when viewed from the earth, will be refracted in passing through the differing layers of density of its atmosphere, and that the degree of refraction will be proportional to the altitude of the rays passage above the suns surface.

The figure below shows how the transit of light emitted by a distant object, through the different layers of the solar atmosphere, will result in an angular variation between the true position and the observed position on the opposite side of the sun.

If we consider a ray of light passing through the sun’s atmosphere from point A it will be deflected towards the surface as it encounters progressively denser gases up to point B where the ray is tangential to the suns surface and the variation in density is neutral, from this point the ray encounters gases that are progressively reducing in density and the refractive effect is then in the opposite direction away from the sun up to the altitude (corresponding to that of point A) at point C.

Clearly the distance travelled and the total refractive effect from A to B is greater that that from B to C, which will result in an angular distortion of the body’s true position as seen by an observer at C.

In summary it is indisputable that, contrary to the belief of scientists at the turn of the last century, the sun has an atmosphere and that its gravitational forces would result in this atmosphere varying in density with altitude.

That this would result in a refractive distortion of light at the observers position from any object viewed tangentially through this atmosphere is again indisputable, and therefore Eddington’s complete rejection of any refractive effect was wrong, and the so called ‘proof of relativity’ invalid.

In 1900 had been known for some time that there was an anomaly in the orbit of Mercury that could not be explained by Newton’s laws. Its elliptical orbit is precessional, or in other words is of itself rotating around the sun and the anomaly was a minute excess in this precession, in that it was proceeding at a greater rate than predicted. General relativity gave an explanation for this (mass dilation) and this, together with the 1919 eclipse observations, sealed the reputation of Einstein in the scientific world.

The argument for the advance of Mercury’s perihelion however does not appear to view the orbit of Mercury from the perspective of the focus of its orbit, which is the centre of the sun. If this were applied and taken to its logical conclusion, by starting from the basis of the average velocity/mass and applying mass dilation in the hemisphere of the aphelion, a lower than average mass would result and thus a reduced velocity at the aphelion and an undershooting of its predicted position. And as the time Mercury spends in the hemisphere of the aphelion is far greater than that in the opposite, the result would be to more than cancel out the suggested perihelion advance, which in turn would have the overall effect of reversing the observed precession.

The elliptical orbit of Mercury is, of all the planets (apart from that of Pluto which orbits over 4,000 million km from the sun) the most accentuated, in that the nearest point in its orbit, the perihelion, is 46 million km from the sun, while the aphelion, the furthest point, is nearly 70 million km, as represented in the figure below, and there will be a significant difference in the densities of the solar atmosphere at the minimum and the maximum orbital altitudes.

Therefore these variations in the density of the solar atmosphere, depicted by the dashed circles in the figure above, would result in a greater frictional retardation of the orbital motion of Mercury in the region of the perihelion compared to that at the aphelion, which would have the effect of accelerating the rate of precession. Which effect in these circumstances can easily be explained by the application of classical mechanics.

(1) ‘Air – The Nature of Atmosphere and Climate’ Michael Allaby

(2) The degree of refraction in this figure is of course exaggerated for clarity; the degree varies from zero at the observer’s zenith to the maximum refraction of about 33 minutes of arc at the horizon.

(3) ‘Space, Time and Gravitation’, Arthur Eddington

At the turn of the last century scientists generally believed that the atmosphere was a thin layer surrounding the earth, after which the vacuum of space began, and today the science of physics is locked into the consequences of this false assumption.

It was also widely believed then that this vacuum of space permeated down through the atomic matter of the atmosphere and into the liquid and solid matter at the surface of the earth – the theory of ‘discontinuous’ matter, also known as kinetic atomic theory.

Today it is known that: – “The space shuttle at 300 km altitudes ‘in space’ was found to be in air, with the same proportions of oxygen and nitrogen as at sea level, at a concentration of 1 billion atoms per cc. Thus in no sense could it be called a vacuum.”

“The sun too has an atmosphere – that extends far beyond the orbit of the earth, and at 80,000 km our atmosphere merges imperceptibly with that of the sun.” (Michael Allaby, ‘Air, The Nature of Atmosphere and Climate’)

Today it is accepted, by applied scientists and technicians, that it is not possible to create a perfect vacuum in the laboratory, and further it is now acknowledged that a perfect vacuum ‘is a philosophical concept with no physical reality’ and that ‘outer space is a natural high quality (i.e. partial) vacuum’.

Today there is also empirical evidence that the theory of discontinuity is invalid. This has been provided since the early 1980’s by the technology of electron microscopy. The images of individual atoms in close proximity at the surfaces of solid matter produced by this technique, which take a considerable amount of time to produce, show no sign whatever of the motion or of the separation predicted by the theory.

Of course this evidence is very difficult for theoretical physicists to accept as it would completely overturn and invalidate current atomic theory, and accordingly they make excuses for this ‘apparent continuousness’ , such as ‘the (STM) probe is too clumsy’ and ‘electron clouds obscure the details’, which are, to say the least, unconvincing.

However the real problem associated with this concept of an ‘empty space’ separating atomic matter was outlined by Isaac Newton over 300 years ago:-

‘That one body may act at a distance upon another through a vacuum, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe that no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.’

To translate from polite 17th century language into the colloquial “If anybody believes in action at a distance through a vacuum they are stupid”, and it is an obvious fact that it is both conceptually and mathematically impossible to describe the transmission of any force between two masses of any dimension, from the atomic to the cosmic, through an intervening vacuum, or alternatively through an intervening ‘aethereal medium’ that by definition cannot influence in any way the matter within it.

It is significant however that this ‘empty space’ that current atomic theory suggests is separating matter in all states, (occupying 999 parts per thousand by volume of the atmosphere at sea level) is not defined or even mentioned directly when the basic premises of the theory are set out in textbooks as in this example:-

“The total volume of the individual gas molecules added up is negligible compared to the volume of the container.”

So one way or the other this assumed, continuous and universal volume of unmentionable and indefinable non-matter is the millstone around the neck of theoretical physics and is the reason for its failure to provide an explanation for the transmission of the force of gravitation.

As this force obviously acts through the atmosphere, and as it is not possible to describe how it is transmitted through the theoretical, ‘empty space’ component of air, then in these circumstances the only inference that can be drawn is that the unproven concept of ‘discontinuous matter’, on which modern atomic physics is based, is invalid.

While this was a logical idea for solid matter, in which solid, spherical atoms could be pictured in close proximity as in a pile of oranges, the problem was to explain the fluidity of liquids and of air (as the latter had been identified by Empedocles as having substance).

This was resolved by assuming that the atoms in these states of matter were moving in an eternal ‘kinetic’ motion surrounded by an empty space that was a perfect vacuum, which by definition could not itself exert any force or influence the motions or interactions of the atomic matter in any way.

This idea of the existence of an all-encompassing vacuum was soundly rejected by, amongst others, Aristotle, whose theories, such as the concept of just four material elements (earth, air, fire and water), predominated and which later became part of the accepted ’science’ by the Ecclesiastical Roman Empire which ruled Western Europe for a thousand years. The church allowed no deviation from these concepts and, often brutally, enforced acceptance of them, but with the dissipation of the churches power from the 16th century onwards and with technological advances, such as Galileo’s refinement of the telescope, natural philosophers began to openly explore the realities of the material environment.

In 1643 a pupil of Galileo, Torricelli, inverted a long glass tube sealed at one end and filled with mercury into an open container of the same element. The resultant space that appeared at the top of the column of mercury in the tube was generally assumed to be a perfect vacuum.

(This apparatus, later to be used as the barometer, also appeared to confirm that the atmosphere surrounding earth extended only to a certain altitude, whereupon the perfect vacuum of space began.)

Shortly after in 1647, as a result of this demonstration of the voids existence, Gassendi resurrected and refined Democritus’ atomic theory.

When, in the latter part of the 18th century, the four elements theory was finally demolished by the separation of two of its constituents, air and water, into their component elements, Aristotle’s long-standing authority was further diminished.

The assumptions that are the basis of atomic theory today were presented by Clerk Maxwell in 1859 in his statistical analysis of atomic interactions in gases, the Laws of Distribution of Velocities, which laws were later modified by Boltzmann.

This quantitative model of the kinetic atomic theory of gases, provided the means to be able to predict with reasonable accuracy the behaviour of gases in differing conditions. However it should be noted at this point that similar quantitative kinetic theories for liquids and solids, in which states atoms are also suggested to be in kinetic motion in empty space, have since proved impossible to formulate.

One of the main assumptions presented by Clerk Maxwell was that “the volume of molecules is infinitesimal compared to the volume of the gas” , which means that with respect to air at sea level, the volume of atomic matter is just 1/1000th of the total of any volume.

Clerk Maxwell himself assumed that this empty space was not a vacuum but the hypothetical ‘luminiferous aether’, but this concept of a ’space-filling’ non-matter, that facilitated the transmission of light, was dealt a fatal blow by the Michelson and Morley experiments with light in 1887, the intentions of which were to prove the aether’s existence in interplanetary space and which failed to do so.

However intense debate on the possibility of the existence of the state of vacuum continued until the turn of the last century, when physics was in a state of chaos, with Planck’s controversial ‘quanta’ solution to the ‘Ultra-violet Catastrophe’ and with pro and anti-atomists at loggerheads.

This state of affairs was ended by the scientists of the day progressively accepting Einstein’s theories during the following two decades, culminating in the apparent confirmation of his Relativity theories by Eddington’s observations of a solar eclipse in 1919.

The day after these results were published the London Times ran the headlines ‘Revolution in science. New theory of the Universe. Newtonian ideas overthrown.‘ and Einstein became a global superstar.

As a biographer put it (1) “sickened by the useless slaughter (of the 1914-18 World War) people – turned from incompetent generals to a new hero – who had drawn a new picture of nature and the structure of the universe. That (his) work was far beyond them did not matter. Tired of the old bloody world they were ready to worship the new one and its creator – it was sudden, overwhelming fame.”

In his published papers Einstein affirmed his acceptance of kinetic atomic theory, and the attendant existence of the void, and stated that “the concept of an ether is superfluous”, and his subsequent fame and authority eliminated the opposition to discontinuity within the scientific community, which concept today remains one of the cornerstones of atomic physics.

But where today, with all the technical expertise available, is the proof of the existence this state?

The ‘vacuum’ above the mercury in a mercury barometer contains mercury vapour, and so is a partial vacuum, not a perfect one, and given that the basic atomic theory as taught today still states that the vacuum already occupies 99.9% of the volume of the air we breathe, it must be assumed that some unequivocal demonstration of its existence would be available by now. However it is generally accepted, at least by applied scientists, engineers and technicians that the creation of this hypothetical state in the laboratory by various, highly sophisticated, decompressive techniques, is not possible.

Thus to date no proof has been produced of the existence of the vacuum in any circumstance, and this failure is in itself reason to seriously doubt its existence.

Since the 1980’s technological advances such as the the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) have made it possible to view, and even manipulate, the individual atoms on the surfaces of solid matter. Such images are widely available, but each one takes a considerable amount of time to produce by moving the tip of the probe slowly back and forth across the target, and in every case the atoms depicted are clearly defined, as in the image below, which is a representation of the image of atoms at the surface of a sample of solid matter.