Sunday, December 16, 2012

Welcome to Geocentral

Last night at a discussion of ROFTERS (Readers-of-First-Things) my esteemed friend Lewis Smith expressed surprise at my contention that mankind is of earth, belongs to the earth, the home of mankind is the earth. He asked something to the effect - "Are you then opposed to the idea of men going to another planet or colonizing space?" I replied that I am not opposed to space travel as such - in fact I wrote a long narrative poem about the Moon Voyage. And I would rather see technological man engage in space ventures than in militarism.

On that same evening Tom Anderson, the leader of the discussion, handed me a xerox copy of a new article by John Lukacs to appear in a forthcoming issue of The American Scholar -- "Putting Man Before Descartes." The legend reads: "Human knowledge is neither objective nor subjective. It is personal and participant - which places us at the center of the universe." Apparently this essay, or "Exhortation," as it is called, forms one of the chapters of Lukacs' new addition to his memoirs, called Last Rites.

These two references to geocentrism gave me the idea of starting a new blog in honor of my friends at the discussion and the noble subject of geocentrism. It gives me the opportunity to re-post several items on geocentrism that I wrote a couple of years ago and to continue the discussion, dialogue, and the posting of interesting and related items.

Note: the first four or five posts are forward-dated in order that they might appear in the order they were written. After the older posts have been re-posted I will continue with normal dating. Today's date is December 16, 2008.

Friday, December 16, 2011

The Case for Geocentrism


[Repost from Sunday, September 10, 2006. Slightly edited.]


I have been involved in a monumental reading project -- "Galileo Was Wrong," by Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. This book, not yet available in print format, is available on CD from a website of that name. It is probably the most comprehensive, detailed, and meticulously documented survey of the geocentric theory available in the world today - over a thousand pages of discussion, argument, narrative and illustrative material elucidating the cosmic position of our earth in the universe.

Not being a scientist, I am not qualified to comment in depth on the book's technical aspects. There is an enormous body of knowledge, scientific, historical, and theological, encompassed in its pages. I must admit I was quite surprised to learn, for example, that no one has ever actually "proved" that the earth moves. A large section of the book is devoted to the famous Michelson-Morley experiment(s) (1880's) which found that a light beam discharged in the direction of the Earth's assumed motion showed virtually no difference in speed from a light beam discharged north to south or south to north. Thus the experiment failed to detect the Earth moving in or against space.

I was also intrigued to learn that astronomic findings have discovered that galaxies and quasars are arranged in periodic distributions around the Earth, and that the Earth sits at the center of the highest concentration of matter in the Universe. Tegmark, an astronomer at the University of Pennsylvania, discovered that there is a universal orientation around Earth's equatorial plane -- a finding labelled byte journal New Scientist as the "axis of evil" because it confounds the Copernican Principle. Jonathan Katz (2002) remarked that the Copernican or cosmological principle -- if averaged over a sufficiently large region, the properties of the universe are the same everywhere; our position is unremarkable-- "is the foundation of nearly all cosmology."
This cosmological principle is a kind of astronomical uniformitarianism, and scientists did not welcome findings related to periodicity - whether of galaxies, quasars, gamma-ray bursts - because they showed evidence of Intelligent Design.

Sungenis argues that the contortionist Relativity Theory of Einstein was basically the result of the failure to correctly interpret the findings of Michelson-Morley. One of the important issues of the time concerned the question of the ether - a postulated medium of space which would allow for the propagation of light and gravity. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity denied the ether, but some years later with the General Theory, the concept returned in some form. The discussion of the fate of the concept of the ether, and how it ties in with that of gravity, is fascinating.

The concept of gravity is thoroughly explored, and Sungenis and his co-author venture to discuss what gravity is as opposed to merely how it can be described mathematically - an important distinction to bear in mind, given that one of Sungenis's main points is that modern
cosmology has become a mathematical maze with ever-diminishing experimental evidence. One of the most fascinating sections of the book is Sungenis's discussion of the findings of Quantum Mechanics in relation to the teachings of Genesis about the 'firmament.' He argues that space is indeed a firmament, composed of a sort of lattice-like structure of stable electron-positron pairs that possesses a granularity and concentration far finer and denser than ordinary matter. He cites Menahem Simhony, who estimated that the number of these pairs in one cubic centimeter of space is 6x10 to the 30th power, with a binding energy of 27 quadrillion kilowatt hours - yet this energy is a million times smaller than the binding energy of the atomic nucleus. This is the "ether" that fills the so-called empty space within the atom. Thus, he explains:

"Since, however, the ether does not penetrate the atom's individual particles (protons, neutrons, etc.) these atomic particles thus account for a percentage of the mass of the atom. But since the atomic particles are less dense than the ether, yet they occupy space in the atom, this means that the total density within the atom will be slightly less than the density of ether outside the atom. This imbalance will cause what can best be described as a partial vacuum in the ether, and the ether will seek to correct the vacuum by attempting to come to equilibrium. Here is the key: the effort to correct the vacuum is the cause of gravity." [Emphasis his; p, 686]



There is no question that Sungenis is a biblicist, and relates the geocentric theory to the work of the Creator. Whether or not the geocentric view is correct, the deep interest this book affords is to look at modern cosmology from the perspective of geocentrism - and to look a number of scientists who go to great lengths to avoid it. Modern physics interprets the electropon lattice as "the creation and annihilation of matter," because it has been found that the application of sufficient energy will cause these electron-positron pairs to "pop out" and disappear. Somehow, the image of scientists shooting holes in the firmament sticks in one's mind. Surely, there is a better way!

I hope to write more at length about this remarkable book in the future, In the meantime, see my related post: "An Earth-Centered Universe - Again?"

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Geocentrism Two: The Big Bang is a Big Bust


Repost: Friday, September 22, 2006

Galileo Was Wrong has three main themes: 1. Arguing the scientific respectability of geocentrism; 2. Presenting the Scriptural and ecclesiastical arguments for geocentrism (to be published in the second volume of the work); and 3. disproving Big Bang theory. Along with these three main themes there are two important sidelines: the explanation of gravity and the ether.

The first volume of the work contains the scientific, mathematical and physical arguments for geocentrism. Closely interwoven in these arguments, or rather in effect simultaneous with them, are disproofs for the Big Bang theory, since it was by means of Big Bang that scientists thought they would lay the ghost of Ptolemy forever to rest. It didn’t quite turn out that way, because one of the paradoxes of Relativity theory is that geocentrism emerges as a position equally valid as heliocentrism. It is possible to make what is called a ‘coordinate transformation’ by taking any point as the center of dynamics. The mathematics works out in both cases, whether one takes the Earth as stable and the heavens moving around it, or the Earth as moving and the heavens stable. [1]

Sungenis is particularly good at uncovering the “emotional atheism” of Copernicanism (rather ironic, as Copernicus himself was a canon of the Church and Kepler believed his harmonic heliocentric theories were in tune with the music of the Holy Ghost). This undertone led to the “principle of mediocrity,” which supposedly indicates “modesty.” Scientists never tire of repeating that it is more “modest” to believe that we occupy a minor planet in an indifferent part of the universe, whereas our arrogant forebears believed they inhabited the center. Actually, in the ancient system the earthly realm was, at least according to Aristotle, considered to be inferior to the heavenly spheres. The “sublunary” sphere was the sphere of imperfection and corruption; the celestial spheres, on the other hand, manifested the principle of perfection, as evidenced by their motion in perfect circles.

“Modesty” does not at any rate appear to be the outstanding characteristic of the devotees of Big Bang theory. Aside from their historical ignorance, they are also cavalier about facts. They would have us believe that the entire universe bloated up from a size less than a dot on this page in an instant of time, creating the massively organized and ordered structures out of an initial cosmic explosion. [2] It’s not science; it’s magic. It disregards the law of Entropy, one of science’s most respected laws, by pretending that order can magically distill out of chaos. Thus Big Bang theory is a sort of counterfeit creatio ex nihilo that makes a mockery of even the best fruits of genuine science – e.g. the discoveries of the laws of thermodynamics.

This “inflationary” scenario is the real emotional ground and tone of our era, providing not only a convenient model for capitalist expansionism, but also enabling a kind of infinite and indefinite moral postponement. One never has to reckon with anything, least of all limits, and why be bothered with stewardship or sustainability, since there is always new space being created? Not that it will help us much, but still the theory is attractive for those for whom “economy” means finance and “science” means getting grants. Somebody is always there to fork out the money. Big Bang means never having to call anywhere home, for future possibilities always beckon, and the so-called “facts” can always be made to conform to the promiscuous agenda. The theory gives employment to a lot of people who are good at math, but as astronomer Gerard de Vaucouleurs put it (1970), there has been a loss of empirical evidence and observational facts to accompany the multiplication of fictitious properties of ideal (i.e. nonexistent) universes.

So, although Sungenis is correct when he remarks about these BB theoreticians, “What a wonderful world they have created for themselves, a world in which they can be judged by nothing bigger than themselves,” this is true in the sense that these theoreticians have been busy getting God out of the picture and making matter either eternal or self-created. Yet, on the other hand, making a universe out of equations is not small potatoes either, and even the most self-inflated heads in the Big Bang establishment do have to produce papers that pass the peer-review muster. It may be a case of collective delusion, but it is a difficult and rarefied delusional world up to three, four, or ten decimal places that has to be dealt with. This illustrates the truth of the Chestertonian maxim: a madman is not one who has thrown out reason; it is a person who has thrown out everything except reason.

When Sungenis argues geocentrism he means geocentrism: i.e., the primacy of the creation of the Earth, and not some nebulous entity or force like light, quantum fluctuations, or energy. What he is less adept at doing, or perhaps does not even attempt to do, is to explain why we are thus saddled with this view of the world. Sungenis does not delve into the question of the evolution of consciousness or historic necessity. For, after all, we are indeed saddled with the Big Bang theory and it will not disappear without a struggle, although there are a lot of holes being nibbled out of its edges. He does make the compelling point that people believe that scientific progress is inevitable. Faith in “progress” has obscured the more difficult and skeptical achievement of realizing that people, and perhaps whole societies, can take a wrong turn, and that it may take years, even centuries, to get back on the right footing. Magic and self-assurance make a bad marriage, and conjuring the world to one’s liking is bound to prove fatal in the end.

Nevertheless, there has to be some divine reason for all this confusion. My take on this is as follows: We human beings are a part of the world, and there is a true, real, physical-energetic background for our emotional, intellectual and spiritual strivings. Now this background can probably be described in a number of different ways, but its discovery and description happens to coincide with human history, or rather takes place within it. It was probably bound to happen sooner or later that people would become enamored of their own intellectual powers, that they would discover the seemingly independent and self-compelling power of the intellect. From thence is but a short step to believing in its self-sufficiency – that is, the self-sufficiency of reason and (by extension) of humans themselves. That is to say, the fundamental irrelevance of God. Thus is born the inflationary self-conception, which is anything but modest, But the universe obliged us by providing at least a few tantalizing glimpses of how it might be true – such as the redshift factor [3] and the cosmic microwave background radiation. [4]

To continue with my psycho-somatic explanation: this process of enamourment, with its discoveries and assumptions, followed along the heels of the men of the 16th and 17th centuries who were developing the heliocentric theory. There is surely a genuine core of validity to heliocentrism to the degree that it represents the ‘solar Logos – that is, the ability to think dispassionately, the aspiration that human thinking should not only produce light but also radiate warmth, the ideal of an intellectual consciousness that is beneficiently and creatively centrally radiant rather than egotistically grasping and ultimately draining and depleting. These are ideals of heliocentrism that have very much to do with the attainment of true modesty, if not humility.

We all know the kinds of corruptions that have ensued. With heliocentrism, people took a historical step toward the grasp of thinking for its own sake, and the attack of the ‘Demons’ – within and without -- has not ceased since. If anything, the egocentrism has magnified to the point of making science almost unrecognizable. It has not been enough to banish God from the cosmos. The equivalent issue is the derision and demotion of truth. At some point heliocentrism and Big Bang must again yield – to a new willingness not only to consider the Earth and the Sun, but to accept the Moon – that is, symbolically, the feelings and less-conscious background of human life that give us our moral tone, our historical coloring, our dim but recurrent yearnings for deeper understanding. Pure sun-consciousness is too much; we need the dimmer light of the moon and of twilight, in order to 'dream through' our sensory impressions. And especially do we need to 'sleep them through' - we need the full depths of Night as well, to allow our impressions to go into the prelude of dreaming and thus to sink into forgetfulness. The correlatives for sleeping, dreaming, and waking are, cosmically, Earth, Moon and Sun.

Only when the manifold cosmos is balanced, like a stool, on the three cosmic objects of Earth, Sun, and Moon, can we begin to approach the Universe with the depth of soul and patiently-won humility that our human stature demands. Unless we can find our way to this understanding, we will continue to be the spectators and gullible victims of the increasingly ugly blood sport called "The Tyranny of the Intellectuals."

[1] Cf. Bertrand Russell: “…all motion is relative…to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction.” (1958) Arthur Lynch: “The movements of the two bodies (i.e. sun and earth) are relative one to the other, and it is a matter of choice as to which we take as our place of observation.” The Case Against Einstein, [1930’s]. I. Bernard Cohen: “There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the Sun… Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the earth neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit.” Birth of a new Physics, 1985.

[2] Philip Morrison: “It is deceptive to maintain for so long the very term that stood for a beginning out of nothing.” “The Big Bang: Wit or Wisdom?” Scientific American, Feb. 2001.

[3] Redshift refers to the observation that light from distant galaxies tends to redden, a phenomenon interpreted to mean recession velocity, i.e. that they are receding from us. This interpretation was given by Hubble, who discovered it, although he also maintained doubts about it – a fact often not mentioned. The recessional velocity theory became the keystone for the ‘exploding universe’ concept when it became apparent that it was not enough merely for the universe to be expanding – because, if that were the case, it would mean that the distant galaxies were flying away from us faster than the speed of light – another no-no according to Relativity. Thus ‘expansion’ became ‘explosion’ -- located in some conveniently distant past that you could sweep under a rug called ‘Singularity’ and more or less forget about. Astronomer Halton Arp challenged this interpretation arguing that higher redshift simply means younger matter. He reports his findings in his book, Seeing Red, and tells the story of the many obstacles placed in his path by the science establishment which is ferociously wedded to the concept of expansionary universe – Arp was denied use of the telescope, his articles were not reviewed or negatively reviewed and not published, and people dealt with his findings and ideas dismissively, etc. etc.

[4] The cosmic microwave background radiation was the most powerful predictive tool of Big Bang theory, which said that the universe should have a background temperature, although it did not specify what that temperature was. A problem for Big Bang, however, is the even-ness of the CMB- it hardly varies at all from 2.73°K. It’s hard to figure out how galaxies and other massive objects could form given this nearly invariant radiation temperature. Big Bangers postulate that the universe is “isotropic and homogeneous” when it suits them to deny certain facts about the Earth’s position, while in other situations the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe proves to be rather embarrassing. I hope in a future post to describe recent findings that argue that the CMB temperature, not far above absolute zero, is the boundary-interface between positive and negative energy in the universe – the portal to the etheric realm.



Tuesday, November 16, 2010

The Dirac Equation



D.L. Hotson’s "Dirac’s Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy," published in Infinite Energy (Part I: 43:2002; Part II, 44:2002)


Don Hotson argues in these two superlatively written papers that physics got off track in 1934 with the "emasculation" of the equations of Paul Dirac (1902-1984). The solution to Dirac’s equation finds four different kinds of electron: an electron-positron pair with positive energy and an electron-positron pair of negative energy. The physics community could not accept the "politically incorrect" notion of negative energy, hence Dirac’s equation was truncated and the numbers were fudged to account for only the positive energy aspect of the equation. As Hotson puts it, "The Dirac equation was a direct threat to the reigning paradigm. As Dirac noted, physicists had always arbitrarily ignored the negative energy solutions. If they were real in some sense…they had all been mortifyingly, catastrophically wrong all these years, ignoring exactly half of reality. And that other half of reality, alarmingly, seemed to resemble the anathematized aether."

What is "negative energy"? Hotson reminds us that it is thanks to Benjamin Franklin and his famous kite experiment that the electron, the very unit of electricity, was given a minus sign. Had Franklin assigned to what was flowing a positive sign, we might not have had such a hard time accepting the concept of ‘negative energy.’ "Matter(mass)," says Hotson,"is positive energy, [and] our reality has a large positive energy balance." We get by on "single entry bookkeeping" that treats positive energy as the only kind of energy.

But we observe symmetry all throughout nature: charges come in positive and negative, particles are symmetric between matter and anti-matter. Only in energy do we deny that such a symmetry exists. The fundamental symmetry of nature comprises two basic forces: that which binds and coheres, and that which frees and loosens. One may call the first the impulse of generality, unity, relating, and the second the impulse of individualizing, distinguishing, and singling-out. In physics the binding or cohering forces saddled with the negative sign are gravitation, the strong nuclear force, and the Coulomb force between unlike charges. The loosening and explosive forces, on the other hand, carry the positive sign – notably the repulsive Coulomb force between like charges.

Is not the whole ‘Big Bang’ theory in effect a declaration of the monopoly of the positive or explosive force? – a case of positive-energy explosive-individuation gone haywire. Accounting for the stability of the universe then becomes a problem, and how this high-temperature explosion settled down into the humdrum even temperature of space that we call the "cosmic background radiation" of 2.73˚K in a relatively few million years – well, this is not exactly clear.

Now is the time to introduce a new player – the Bose-Einstein Condensate. What is referred to by this cumbrous piece of terminology is how things behave at very cold temperatures, such as 2.73˚K. It is what is called superconductivity – which is the state in which negative or binding energy overcomes the tiny residual positive or freeing energy so that all the particles are governed by the same wave function. The BEC "is a transition from an incoherent population to a coherent matter wave." (Nature, Sept 2006) As physicist Robert Laughlin put it: "The similarities between the vacuum of space and low-temperature phases of matter are legendary in physics...In fact, the more one studies the mathematical descriptions of cold phases, the more accustomed one gets to using the parallel terminologies of matter and space interchangeably." (From his book, A Different Universe, quoted in Galileo Was Wrong, p. 480.

At these low-temperature states, matter "binds closer and closer together until it becomes all one thing." (Hotson) Every constituent of this so-called BEC is in the same state and acts as one. According to Hotson, this Bose-Einstein configuration is the negative-energy "sea" in which we are immersed. It is in the nature of the BEC configuration to expel all positive energy, which it cannot tolerate. Thus Hotson’s explanation for our life, with its large positive-energy balance, is that it is the "expulsion" – or less delicately, the "defecation" – from the configuration of negative energy that holds this universe together. It is not altogether an appealing image, although it does make intuitive sense.

It might be possible to understand this state of matter in a "sleeping" state. When we are falling asleep, we must "expel" consciousness, which can be understood as a form of positive energy. When we are in deep sleep, we are perhaps in a type of Bose-Einstein state - or as near to it as is possible in human experience. In any case, it is fascinating to consider that the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation - about 2.7˚K - is approximately the boundary-state between positive and negative energy. This would explain the even spread of this temperature background much more compellingly than the idea of a rapid cooling-down from the Big Bang.

Note: Infinite Energy magazine has a great website with all kind of articles. Don Hotson's articles are located at the following links: http://www.openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf
and http://www.openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart2.pdf .


These links were sent to me by Don, who paid me the huge compliment of writing that "I have not seen a review or synopsis of the Dirac stuff as cogent and well-written as your blog." Pretty good for a gal whose knowledge of physics goes no further than F=ma! I don't know if these links are the same as the magazine website or different ones. Anyhow, for intellectually challenging reading material, these articles are great!

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Plasma Cosmology

Enter “The Electric Universe”


There is another group of physicists whose work is now just beginning to penetrate mainstream science. This group, working in the area of what is call plasma physics, argue that the dynamic forces of electromagnetism play a much greater part in holding the universe together than gravitation. The universe is full of these “plasma clouds” – huge diffuse structures of ionized, or electrically charged, particles.

The term “plasma” for these clouds was given because they arrange in life-like and self-organizing patterns – hence the term was borrowed from one of the constituents of blood. From a 2000 press release, “Immense flows of charged particles discovered between the stars,” more than 99% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state. “In contrast to the first three states of matter most familiar to us on Earth: gases, liquids, and solids, plasmas generate and react strongly to electromagnetic fields. [They] are also prodigious producers of electromagnetic radiation. The Sun is a plasma, as are all the stars and interstellar space…” (The picture at left is a solar prominence, showing the plasma state.)

We know of the plasma state on Earth in the form of lightning, fluorescent bulbs, flames, the flow of currents in conductors and semiconductors and the aurora. It is not without interest that some of the leading scientists in the plasma field were of Scandinavian origin, where aurora research has been carried on for years. One of these, the late Hannes Alfven, in his article, “Cosmology in the Plasma Universe: An Introductory Exposition” (IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 18(1): Feb. 1990) brings us back to the Dirac Equation when he notes that it must be legitimate to ask whether the plasma universe is symmetric, or does it consist of exclusively ordinary matter. “As the second alternative is treated in a gigantic literature it is appropriate that we here concentrate on the first alternative. If this is correct, an unprecedented change in astrophysics would occur.” The question of “symmetry” here points to the Dirac “negative energy” concept, although Alfven is framing the question in terms of matter rather than energy.


Nevertheless, a universe full of “living electricity,” where energy is transmitted over vast distances, is a very different picture from the idea of the universe we are accustomed to. A universe of stars and galaxies powered by electricity – “the stars are like streetlamps,” one writer remarked – is a very different place from the universe of Einsteinian-Big Bang cosmology powered by thermonuclear processes.



Perhaps the outlines of a new cosmology is beginning to appear. The Sea of negative energy, ether, plasma universe – do not these things portend vitality, a quality sorely lacking from the science of the past 400 years? For it seems that with modern science, to understand something is to kill it. The universe, however, has been beyond our powers to destroy, so we have merely described the act of creation - “Big Bang” – in terms indistinguishable from an act of destruction.


But how does the plasma concept fit in with the ether? I wrote Robert Sungenis, whose book, Galileo Was Wrong, discusses plasma cosmology in some detail. I asked him if plasma=ether=firmament, or whether they are different things. He wrote back, “As for the ether, it would be the physical substance of the firmament, but plasma is just a form of energy, fire being one of those forms.” To Don Hotson I addressed essentially the same question, leaving out the question of the firmament. I wrote, “Are the Dirac equations a further refinement, or presupposition of, the electric-universe-plasma physics model? And is this model of electron-positron pairs to be understood as the ether?”


He wrote back: “I consider the Dirac findings to parallel and complement the electric/plasma universe. The unique behavior of plasma stems from its close connections to and regulation by the Big BEC. In this model, epos (i.e. electron-positron pairs) are themselves waves, and so must be considered to be waving in something (some medium) which would strictly speaking be ‘the ether’ as it determines the permittivity and permeability of ‘the vacuum, hence the velocity (‘c’) with which epo waves move, hence the velocity with which ‘light’ is carried by them.”

Hotson and the plasma cosmologists are ‘steady-state’ theorists. Hotson thinks of 'our reality' as the ‘exhaust’ from the “sea” of negative energy that creates, powers, and maintains everything that is. We live in a positive-energy world, humanity being the chief representative of this. Within the human world, the capacity of intellect in particular is ‘positive’ – that is, seeking to individuate, distinguish, analyze, break apart, unbind. From this perspective, it is not difficult to see how a human consciousness exclusively oriented towards intellectual analysis will lead over into a ‘Culture of Death.’ This is the real foundation for the social upheavals of our time, in which intellect has succeeded, like Einstein’s gravity, in ‘bending’ everything else in its sphere. But what it cannot do is bend itself. It cannot give convincing reasons for coherence, stability, union. Perhaps the intellect rejects 'negative energy' with as much vehemence as the Bose-Einstein Condensate rejects the positive energy.



In the meantime, we discovered the physical electricity, so to speak, rather than its cosmic counterpart, and we proceeded to ‘electrify’ everything on earth. But you have to ask whether the ‘earthly electricity’ to which we have subjugated all of life is a true picture of the cosmic electrical universe, or whether it may be a ‘fallen’ picture of it. The ‘cosmic’ electricity is a study in life-forms, a living dynamic of energy. It represents the transfer of vital energies with life-sustaining powers over large distances. Here is the concept of positivity contained, balanced by all the other forces in the universe. Odd that we should have given such a transfer of energy a ‘negative’ sign!

Whereas, on earth, the electricity that we harness and use is like an additional injection of ‘positive’ energy on an already positively-maximized human situation – it’s like injecting sugar into a diabetic. It is perhaps for this reason that Ernst Lehrs, author of Man or Matter, remarks that “…with every act of setting electromagnetic energies in motion we interfere with the… balance of our planet by turning part of the earth’s coherent substance into ‘dust.’ Thus we may say that whenever we generate electricity we speed up the earth’s process of cosmic ageing… It was man’s fate to remain unaware of this fact during the first phase of the electrification of his civilization; to continue now in this state of unawareness would spell peril for the human race.”