Embark on an intellectual journey with Real Science Radio, as hosts Fred and Doug, alongside Dr. Pete Moore, introduce an intriguing alternative to Einstein’s relativity theory. Drawing from scriptural insights and scientific scrutiny, Dr. Moore elaborates on the POLA model and Newton’s enduring hypotheses regarding the ether. With lively discussions on quantum entanglement, the speed of light, and the fabric of the cosmos, this episode promises to challenge the status quo and broaden your understanding of the universe.
Welcome back to Real Science Radio. I’m Fred Williams here with Doug McBurney, and we’re once again joined by Dr. Pete Moore. In our first two shows, we unpacked the cracks in Einstein’s theory of relativity. Today, we turn the corner and introduce an alternative framework, one that offers a better fit with both scripture and science. So let’s dive in.
SPEAKER 01 :
This is evidence that the speed of light near the sun versus away from the sun are different. But if you say that, you’ll be fired.
SPEAKER 02 :
Can’t explain it all away Get ready to be awed By the handiwork of God Tune in to Real Science Radio Turn up the Real Science Radio Keepin’ it real
SPEAKER 03 :
Greetings to the brightest audience in the country. I’m Fred Williams. And I’m Doug McBurney, Bible student, science geek, amateur comedian. Fred, it is great to be back with you for Real Science on Friday.
SPEAKER 05 :
And we have back in the studio Dr. Pete Moore. And last show, we talked about all the problems with special and general relativity. We talked about things such as Mercury’s perihelion. And it turns out that, you know, so yeah, maybe relativity works with that, but it doesn’t work so well with other planets. We talked about the Hefele-Keating experiment with atomic clocks on airplanes, and it’s often cited as proof of time dilation. And, you know, Louise Essin, Dr. Louise Essin, a British physicist said, He was one of the inventors of the atomic clock, and he had problems with that experiment. He sure did. There was a lot of issues with it, so we talked about that. We talked about E equals MC squared. A lot of people think that somehow that’s related to special relativity. Well, we found out it wasn’t. And we also talked about quantum mechanics and how that is an evidence against… against special relativity and this whole notion that light is limited to a certain speed. You can’t go faster than the speed of light. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Well, quantum entanglement was a serious problem for that. And for years, Einstein tried to disprove it to his deathbed and he never was able to. And then later on, physicists actually proved that this phenomenon of quantum entanglement is real. So anyways, we talked about a lot of the evidences against relativity, but the problem is if you’re going to Try to pull clothes into a theory. You’ve got to come up with one of your own, right, Dr. Moore?
SPEAKER 01 :
If you don’t put one of your own, they’ll just ignore your points of criticism.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yep, exactly. So you’ve come back into the studio because we left the last show with our audience hanging because you’ve got but you’re going to propose a model, right? A way to explain the phenomenon that we’ve seen and like the Michelson-Morley experiment that Einstein, that confused Einstein and kind of rightly so, right? Because it gave results that kind of implied there is no ether. And so it led down this rabbit hole into physics of time dilation and, you know, the size of objects changing sizes and all these kind of weird, crazy ideas. So you’re here to help our audience understand alleviate this weirdness. That’s correct.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, Dr. Moore, before you start, before you start, I just have to thank you for confirming my suspicion for 15 years that everybody has E equals MC squared confused with relativity. Thank you. You proved it at least two different ways. And I just want to remind our audience scripturally that So Dr. Moore said you cannot replace something with nothing. You better propose a replacement or you’re just going to be ignored. The scripture teaches us, in fact, Jesus Christ promises us that if we have faith in him, he will replace our old man who is a servant of sin with our new man in his image who is a servant of righteousness. And so Dr. Moore, keeping with that biblical theme, Let’s hear your replacement for the theory of relativity.
SPEAKER 01 :
One of the things we did cover in our last session, we’ll kind of go over that again. What did Einstein attribute his ability to be a free thinker and come up with some of these kind of stranger than strange theories? Well, in his autobiography, he attributes his positively fantastic free thinking, that’s Einstein’s quote, and suspicion against every kind of authority to having been deceived at age 12 by Bible stories taught in German schools. So that’s where Einstein’s coming from, is a rejection of the Holy Scriptures. But in spite of all of that, I still attribute his greatest achievement is when he finally came to the conclusion that one that was an ether, and he did that five years after the general theory, but that the ether distortion actually creates gravity. And in that regard, in that little part, he’s absolutely correct. And as we will find, that fits in very nicely with an alternate theory of the ether.
SPEAKER 05 :
All right. Yeah, and just to mention from our last show, too, you listed all the scientists of the major foundations of science, and they’re all Christian. And so somehow with all these disciplines… that the creationist community is going to trust a secular person who really rejects the Bible. In fact, was very critical of it. So that just something for our audience. I’d ask him to consider, because that was one of the biggest reasons I have rejected relativity from years back. It was really just purely scriptural based on the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God coming from Einstein, a darling of the media, a darling of the left media, you know, times man of the year, multiple times. Anyway, sorry, Dr. Moore, I’ll let you go on to your model now.
SPEAKER 01 :
So we’ve criticized point for point. And as I’ve said before, you’re not going to get rid of Einstein by just criticizing one point or another. You’re going to have to replace it. So as we go forward here, I’m going to try to at least point to a possible solution. theory of the ether model that could replace theory of relativity. Now, if you’re going to develop an ether model, what needs to go into it so that you can consider it a robust natural physics model? And as we see here on the screen, the very first thing is that it must consist of real particles, mass, energy, and dimensions. So we’re not talking relative stuff, we’re talking real particles. Two, it must show the source of inertia, the resistance to acceleration. How is it when you go into outer space? Matter should be weightless, and yet it takes energy to make it move. That is called the resistance of inertia. And so what is it? A good model should tell you what that is. It must explain constant maintenance of velocity in space. So once you’re up to a velocity, how is it you can then glide forever to the other end of the universe? What is maintaining that velocity? Three, why inertia resistance changes as the velocity of mass increases. It’s not linear. And derive the mass velocity dependence equation. A good model of the ether should be able to do that. It should explain the mechanism by which light propagates. How does light crawl the next inch? What did it do to get that next inch? It should be able to explain or predict the speed of light, the actual number. I mean, it’s an arbitrary number. 299,000 such and such all the way out. All those digits. Why that number? Why is it a specific number? The model of ether should explain the speed of light and predict it. It should explain why electrons and positrons can suddenly appear and disappear with a flash of energy. they call some of these virtual particles. They just all of a sudden popped out of nowhere. Well, I think a good ether theory will show you where they came from. It should be able to explain, predict E equals MC squared and its real meaning. Oh, wait a minute.
SPEAKER 03 :
You mean it doesn’t prove relativity?
SPEAKER 01 :
No, it doesn’t. And it has something to do with energy, but most people consider this the mass of equivalent energy. So mass can be converted to pure energy or energy into pure mass. You’re going to find out that’s not true. There’s a different meaning that explains that equation. It should be able to predict and explain Planck’s equation for energy, E equals HF. Sometimes they call it V or italicized V, and it’s real meaning. It should be able to explain particle-wave duality. We’ve heard of that in different parts of science, that there’s a particle and wave duality. What is the real meaning of that? Yeah. It should be able to explain the mechanism by which gravity force propagates. Whoa. How does a proton on the sun, single proton… reach out 93 million miles and tug on another proton on Earth at that distance. One proton tugging on another. And of course, there’s trillions in the sun and trillions in the Earth, but they do it one at a time. How does gravity do that? Number 11, it should explain or predict the Michelson-Morley experiment null result. And that’s no easy feat.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, and go back to the last show to learn more about that. I believe Dr. Moore has a really good explanation there.
SPEAKER 01 :
And we’re going to fill that explanation in further in this session. And then number 12, it should be able to explain and predict the gravitational constant itself. Why is it those digits 6.6743? Where do those digits come from? And right now I’ve seen some things on the YouTube that said the gravitational constant is the biggest mystery of the universe. Nobody knows why it is that number. I believe that a good model should be able to predict that. Now, you notice I have number 12 in green, and underneath I’m saying in progress, still working on a mathematical solution. So the model that I’m going to show you, the first 11 are already done. The only one that is yet to be done is number 12. And the author of that model was working on it before he passed away, but he didn’t finish his work. Ah, because here’s the thing. Anyone out there in the audience would love to be famous. for the next hundred years is take the model of ether and show algebraically or with calculus and differential equations, how that you can derive the gravitational constant G and get it right.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, and whoever nails that math, They have the equivalent of E equals MC squared on the walls of every university for the next several centuries.
SPEAKER 01 :
There you go. Now, there are some other names for the ether or ether space or the vacuum space. There’s some other names for it. Now, we know that it has electrical properties and magnetic properties. We’ve already mentioned that before. So it’s no surprise that the other word for an ether is the electromagnetic field. Well, what’s a field? Well, it’s a field. Nobody wants to go into how did the field get there? What is it made of? What’s its granularity? All of those, it’s just a field. And so it’s like saying ether. So if you like the word ether, great. Or you can call it the electromagnetic field. But when we look at that word, electromagnetic field, it’s made of two parts. Electro is talking about electricity. And those come in two flavors. The one flavor is a positive charge. And when we talk positive charge in our universe, the only things that we know that are fundamental are the positron, and the proton. Now the proton is about 1,836 times bigger than the positron, but both of them have the same positive charge. So electro comes in positive, but it also comes in negative. With the negative charge, the most famous, of course, is the stable electron. And so those are particles that have those kind of charges. Now, we have the other word, magnetic. Magnetic always comes in two flavors, north pole and a south pole. And anytime in the universe you find a north, you’ll find the south nearby. So they always come in pairs. Unlike the mass, you can have a positron or you could have an electron. They don’t come in pairs, but these come in pairs, north and south. And so if we look at that and we take the north and south and consider that each of these particles has a magnetic dipole. So positrons and electrons are known to have a magnetic dipole. They have a north pole and they have a south pole. And why shouldn’t they? They are spinning charges. And if you take charges and make them move, you create magnetism. So these spinning particles have their north pole and their south pole. So when you do this kind of a study, you can see that if the ether is made of particles, these are most likely the particles that the ether is made from, because now they possess both electrical and magnetic properties.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah. And, you know, from just from my engineering background, electrical engineering is whenever you have a current, you have magnetism. So that’s why we’ve talked about plasma cosmology is something we think, you know, maybe more creationists should look into. We’ve done a radio show on that, I think, three years ago, Doug. But we’re going to do another show for the YouTube audience on plasma cosmology is something we find interesting. We’re not 100 percent convinced of it. But to your point, the universe, there’s so much evidence showing this electromagnetic, these currents running through the universe. So interesting. That’s really cool.
SPEAKER 01 :
So with this kind of an understanding that if there are likely particles that make the ether, we’ve identified most likely what they are. So we go back to the postulated ether theory, which we’ve already covered, but I want to add two more things. One, the extreme light speed through an ether suggests that the ether is highly elastic and highly stiff. How fast are we talking about speed of light? 186,000 miles a second. Well, if you take an energy wave through a pad of rubber, you knock on it with your fist, it goes a certain speed. But if you, instead of that, you take a slab of steel, it’s stiffer. And then when we measure the speed of sound through it, it’s many times faster. However, if you take a diamond and measure the speed of a really stiff diamond, which is far even stiffer than steel, it’s faster yet. So then the theory goes, well then, what would explain the speed of light, which is 10,000 times faster yet? Something extremely elastic and extremely stiff, and so we would need to recognize that ether must have those kind of properties.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, Dr. Moore, can you stop for a second? Because just from the layman’s point of view, it seems to me that elasticity and stiffness aren’t those opposite of each other, or am I misunderstanding?
SPEAKER 01 :
No, elastic means it’s stretchable. Stiffness means how much energy it takes to stretch it. So elastic stiffness has to do with the energy of elasticity, and something that could move an energy wave through it at the speed of light would have to be enormously elastic and enormously stiff at the same time. Newton suggested the unknown or an unknown vibrating ether particle So Newton came back and said, I think it’s particles. I think the ethers made it. Now, he didn’t know what they were, but he certainly said that’s what they are. And why shouldn’t he say that? All other energy waves have a particle medium that waves. We have water waves, gaseous waves, solid waves. All of these are similar in that they have particles that make up the medium, whether it’s water or or air, or if you were to take that salt crystal there and bang on it, the sound through it is even faster yet on that stiff salt crystal. So water waves are repetitive cyclical motion of H2O atoms or molecules. And water sound waves are repetitive vibrations of H2O. And we have salt sound waves are repetitive vibration of salt atoms. and a diamond sound waves are repetitive vibrations of the carbon atoms that make up the crystal. So all of this would seem to indicate that if you’re going to have waves then somewhere something has to wave and particles are a logical conclusion. The stiffer the bond energy between the particles and the lighter the particle is, the higher wave speed you get. Now Scientific American addressed this possible ether theory of Sir Isaac Newton. And here’s what it says. Isaac Newton was convinced that there must be an account of gravity, and he attributed that it must be teeny, invisible, jingling particles filling all of seemingly empty space. There it was. He said the entire universe is made up of jiggling little tiny particles. And that was his best shot at explaining an ether model that would account for gravity.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, well, how did he do?
SPEAKER 01 :
Newton wrote about an ether model and gave many of the details of its component attributes. And so let’s look at what he wrote. So here we have in this book, Newton’s Philosophy of Nature, page 143 to 144, and question 21. And here’s what Newton said. And that the elastic force of this medium is exceedingly great, may be gathered from the swiftness of its vibration, like the speed of light, If anyone should suppose that ether, like our air, may contain particles which endeavor to recede from one another, in other words, vibrate, for I do not know what this ether is. Well, the electron had not been discovered. The positron hadn’t been discovered. That will be hundreds of years later. And so it was several hundred years. So he had no clue what they were, but he still came to the conclusion it has to be particles. and that its particles are exceedingly smaller than those of air, or even those of light. The exceeding smallness of its particles may contribute to the greatness of the force by which those particles may recede from one another, and thereby make that medium exceedingly more rare and elastic than air. and, by consequence, exceedingly less able to resist the motion of projectiles, and exceedingly more able to press upon gross bodies by endeavoring to expand.
SPEAKER 05 :
That’s amazing. This is from 1687 roughly.
SPEAKER 01 :
Wow. So he is telling you the attributes of ether that it would have to be to account for all of this. And he continues on. And may not the planets and the comets and all gross bodies perform their motions more freely and with less resistance in this erythial medium than in any fluid that fills all space. adequately without leaving pores, and by consequence is much denser than quicksilver or gold, and may not its resistance be so small as to be inconsiderable. For instance, if this ether, for so I will call it, should be supposed 700,000 times more elastic than our air, and above 700,000 times more rare, its resistance would be above 600 million times less than that of water. And so small a resistance would scarce make any sensible alteration in the motions of the planets in 10,000 years. So he has now got an ether, extremely stiff, extremely elastic, and yet the particles so light, they won’t even resist whole planets moving through space for thousands of years and millions and millions of miles. And that was his model of the ether. So what I did is I took his model of the ether and I took the list of what he says it needs to be. And then I ask myself, is there any modern model that would meet all of Newton’s requirements? And the answer is, there is. And that’s the model I’m going to present to you as my best guess as to what the ether is, and it is this. This is called the POLA model by Professor Simhoni out of Israel. He has since died, but this is his model, and we look at these particles, and we’re only of course looking at one cube, it fills all of space, and note that it has electrical properties and magnetic properties, which we’ve already said, because look at what it’s made out of. There’s an electron, the blue dots. The red dots are positrons. The positron and the electron have now been discovered since Newton. They have electrical properties, and when those come in near each one, the bond is tremendous, so it’s a highly elastic bond between them. Also, if you’ll notice that the positron has a north pole and a south pole. It has a magnetic moment. So does the electron. It has a magnetic moment. So there’s the properties that we need. We need electrical and magnetic properties of this ether that we call space. This model would provide all of that.
SPEAKER 03 :
Mm-hmm.
SPEAKER 01 :
And Simhoni has put how far apart those particles are, 4.4 times 10 to the minus 15th meters. So that’s about 50 times the diameter of an electron. So an electron or a positron, you can look at that space in between, you could put 50 more electrons and positrons between them. That’s the space that he came to by studying salt crystals. Now, when we look at what Newton has said, it’s exceedingly great, the elastic force is exceedingly great. When you compare that to the elastic force of air, this model is 13.2 million times more than air. Newton was looking at the swiftness of its vibrations, like our air may contain particles and that vibration, well, this would have 904,000 times more this model. Exceedingly smaller. The electron is much, much smaller than an oxygen atom or an oxygen molecule, O2, or nitrogen, N2, by 52,000 times. Wow. Exceedingly less able to resist the motions of the projectiles. This model is purely elastic. So any energy it takes to get into it and move through it, you get it back as you move through it. So it restores the energy. And Newton here is showing it fills all the space and is much denser than quicksilver or gold. In fact, this would be 550 million times more dense than gold. So if you could take a cube of this out of the ether, pull it out, put it on a weight scale on Earth, you would find it’s 550 million times the weight of the same volume of gold. Okay.
SPEAKER 05 :
So you mentioned virtual particles before. Have you considered this in light of like zero point energy, all these new ideas that are coming to the forefront?
SPEAKER 01 :
That is right. Instead of virtual particles, we now have real particles. They’ve been discovered. We know the properties of them. Yeah.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, I can’t remember the names of all of them, but I know there’s one in the news here recently, muons. I’m not even sure if I’m seeing it.
SPEAKER 01 :
Muons. Yep, the Higgs. Also, with mass and density and charged particles, you can use the existing solid state physics equations for energy wave velocity. We already have that for salt crystals, diamonds, you name it. Take that same equation, apply it to this right here, and guess what pops out? Do you recognize that number? Speed of light. Here’s a model that when you take this model with that 4.4 distance spacing, put it into the existing solid state physics equation, it says this thing is so stiff that when the vibrations go through this crystal, they will be going at the speed of light. That’s not an accident, folks.
SPEAKER 03 :
No, and so Dr. Moore, for people who are looking for strange and weird, because people like strange and weird things because we like to be entertained. So you’re basically saying that we’ve got something denser than gold and stiffer than steel that fills the whole universe and we don’t even notice it.
SPEAKER 01 :
And you’re swimming in it. That’s weird enough for me. And you don’t even know it. But you know what? The fish swimming in the sea don’t know they’re in the water either.
SPEAKER 03 :
There you go.
SPEAKER 01 :
Let’s explain how he got this model. He was studying salt crystals. And in the laboratory, if you take a salt crystal made of sodium and chloride, each of those, one has a negative charge, the chlorine, and the sodium has a positive. So the chlorine is pulling away more of the electrons, and so it’s negative. And you have this ionic crystal. And as you notice, the electron is a negative and the positron is a positive, so there’s your antithesis in a salt crystal.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hey, we’re running out of time in this broadcast, so go to our website to catch the rest of this program, realscienceradio.com.
SPEAKER 02 :
Scholars can’t explain it all away. Get ready to be awed by the handiwork of God.
SPEAKER 1 :
Tune into Real Science Radio. Turn up the Real Science Radio. Keeping it real. That’s what I’m talking about.
