The Solar Circuit (Back to Basics)

[Millennium]

Depicting the most obvious of the Star/Plasma/Field Wave Group Galactic Circuits ...



from https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005 ... rcuits.htm

[celeste]

Depicting the most obvious of the Star/Plasma/Field Wave Group Galactic Circuits ...



from https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005 ... rcuits.htm

If some are doubting the current flow along the arms in that depiction, note that it appears to match the current flow they observed for the sun here http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780..103W
They still call them current "sheets", but they describe them as cylinders (or circular cross section) current flowing in on opposite sides (180 degree longitude difference) of the sun at the equator. It would appear that not only galaxies, but the sun (at times), may have current flow as shown in that image. At least as far as current along the "arms".

[Millennium]

The discussion in ASTROELECTRONICS has gotten to the point where we are now beginning to look at the VAST fine structure of the circuits of the Sun, StarStreams, Galactic Arms, Galaxy, and Galactic Clusters & Superclusters ...

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2960873 ... 2023295809

Does the Thunderbolts forum now have a mechanism for uploading images?


Millennium

[celeste]

Some thoughts:

Back to basics. To side with one or the other position as to whether the sun internally or externally 'powered' will be found to be an error.

The same is true for galaxies. I'll make this post for you and others here that are already quite familiar with the EU material and ideas put forth elsewhere in this forum. Meaning I'll go fast and only post a couple links here, and assume you know the rest.

First, consider that we see galaxies strung like "beads on a string",or that we see highly focused jets of gas extending for millions of light years out of galactic poles (a huge distance compared to an average galactic diameter). Is that consistent with Wal's galaxy model, where current flows out the poles and in through the arms? I'll suggest that the current through the poles is a large scale current, and the current through the arms is a separate secondary current.
The next step will be to show you that what we see for current flow in galaxies, matches the current flow we see on a smaller scale in the sun. You know how we see current flowing into the sun http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780..103W in cylinders on opposite sides of the sun, yet at the other end of the solar cycle some have shown evidence for a plasma torus around the sun (not current TO the sun)? Compare that to the images http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp ... 5/WISE.jpg of M51 (cylinders of charge, separated by 180 degrees longitude flowing into galactic center), and the image of NGC 1398 (a torus around the center of the galaxy,not arms flowing to the galaxy. In other words, we are not looking at two "types" of galaxies, we are seeing two different phases of the galactic cycle. The same current flow can be used to describe both galactic and solar circuits.

Notice, that if we have strong current flowing through the poles of a galaxy ,we get the shape of NGC 1398. We get charge separated shells, with formation driven by the large scale current. M51 looks like a cross section of a filament with Marklund convection. On the other hand, when we cut the current flow through the poles of the galaxy, we lose the shells. There is no more radial separation of charge by the large scale filament, and charge can return to where it "belongs". In this case, without the magnetic field of the large scale filament dominating, we get current flow in smaller scale Birkeland currents, which we see as arms.

If Wal was right, we would have maximum current flow through the poles when we have maximum current flow through the spiral arms. We need them to be out of phase to describe what see. This is why the sun (just a smaller scale) does not "run down". When we get outside current flowing through the sun's poles, we get a sheet of charge flowing in the sun's equatorial plane. Uniform Marklund convection caused by the large scale filament. When we cut current through the sun, we get an equalization of charge, with charge flowing along small scale scale filaments. No more large scale filament with magnetic fields to dominate, so smaller scale filaments form our return currents.

Questions? Need more evidence?

[Solar]

In other words, we are not looking at two "types" of galaxies, we are seeing two different phases of the galactic cycle. The same current flow can be used to describe both galactic and solar circuits.
(..)
I'll suggest that the current through the poles is a large scale current, and the current through the arms is a separate secondary current.

That is correct overall imho. Let’s look at what might be some supporting evidence and utilize the conjugate relationship (cycle) that the electric forces undergo. With this approach of current ‘input’ through the spiral arms consider the following astrophysical quandary and its explanation:

"The rest of the galaxy is done maturing," said Kartik Sheth of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory of Charlottesville, Virginia. "But the outer ring is just now starting to light up with stars." – Spitzer Telescope Galactic Wheel of Life Shines in Infrared

The so called “density wave” is in actuality a wave of electric field induced increase in “current density” imparted from the ‘external environment’ of the intergalactic medium. This will propagate inward throughout the thickness of the disk as well as discharge inward along the spiral arms including occasionally across their gaps. Astrophysics interprets a portion of this as “… gas cloud falling into Milky Way…” in the same interpretive vein as material observed to be "falling" sunward via LASCO. Astrophysics then uses the kinematics of “compression” and consider the “bar” as simply stirring up the plasma and bouncing it around within the framework of the resonantly cohesive galactic magnetic field - only to resonantly alight the outer edges first?? No thanks.

If you pulse the galaxy with an infusion of “charge” the wave of increased “current density” will “flow” (the more correct term is *propagate*) from the outer towards the inner regions as an 'input' to the system. So they see “old” stars at the nucleus having already used up their “gas” and out of “fuel” while in some cases “new stars” shimmer into existence at the outer edges of some galaxies.

What would the conjugate (cyclic) electrodynamic relationship present? I know that this is a strange term to some but it simply subsumes ‘cause and effect’ relationships as a cycle of event simultaneity; not separate things.

With an electrodynamic pulse, a “burst”, will eventually propagate, by way of electric currents, towards the center producing what? An “active galactic nucleus” (AGN); which will then be accompanied by the presence of “relativistic jets” (Example: NGC 4261). Here is another “blue ring” of supposedly “young” stars at the disk edge with supposedly “old” stars at galactic center:

Characteristics
A nearly perfect ring of young hot blue stars circles the older yellow nucleus…
Hoag’s Object

See what might be happening there? Current through the arms as a result of electric field induced increase in charge/current density is inward bound. But the periphery is alight all at once suggesting an inward advancing stimulus as a whole. Remember, per previous reference, that there may be “burst” of ‘input’ from the larger interstellar and intergalactic species that are mixed within the magnetosphere of sun and/or galaxy.

This to such extent that whole regions (clusters) of increased activity may be observed. There exist both stellar clusters and galactic clusters obviously and in each case they are surrounded by and regulating the external sources through their porous sheaths. Yet, if someone says these celestial entities are externally powered it would only posit a half truth. Why?

Both star and galaxy must be “open” to ‘input’ via their external environments and the external environment must be open to the respective ‘outputs’ of star and galaxy so that the circuits can “close” (integrate) as well as propagate. An AGN with relativistic jet is reciprocating electrodynamic activity in process of regenerating the propagation of large scale electric currents. So, perhaps between a Hoag’s Object and an AGN one sees ‘snapshots’ of a much larger picture wherein the inward bound electrodynamic pulse undergoes interconversion into the energy of an AGN.

Between the two phases of activity (electric field quickening of the outer ring propagating charge inward and later active galactic nucleus with relativistic jets propagating charge outward) a misstep is easy to be had. Why? Because the two phases of activity are being looked at as separate conditions as opposed to a progression. Why do physics keep telling people "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form." - and then contradict the concept with the supposed "law" of conservation of a closed system? Why is it that when “alternative” approaches to established science speak to the reciprocity of systems they are categorized as cranky wackos yet, material observed to be “falling” towards the Sun can officially be referred to as the “global recycling” of stellar material?? Pot – Kettle anyone?

Anyways... as for a star yes, a similar, if not exact version of the process can be had. Here is an example of the scaled dynamic of spiral galaxies (Spiral of AB Aurigae) as pertains a star. The spiral is resolved. Add to this star both high speed "winds" (a flow of charge) at its poles, and its own low speed heliospheric current sheet at its equator with counter-streaming corotating interaction regions forming sunward propagating discharge activity from its external interstellar environment. The simultaneity, even with delayed phenomena - is circuital. It is simply called "charge exchange". Increases/decreases in the magnetic field is one form of 'internal output' that speaks to the regulation of external input through/across the porous sheath for the sake of maintaining equilibrium as a 'response'. This cycle, regardless of scale, induces the continued propagation of the currents.

[Lloyd]

Celeste said: You know how we see current flowing into the sun http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780..103W in cylinders on opposite sides of the sun, yet at the other end of the solar cycle some have shown evidence for a plasma torus around the sun (not current TO the sun)?

Is the second image here what that paper shows? The first image on the left is the Wikipedia image of the HCS. The second image, on the right, is the same thing but with the sheet divided into two tubes. Is that the right idea?

[Millennium]

As to the character, volume, handededness/parity and direction of current flow the names 'Equatorial' and 'Polar' have little meaning. Do we define equatorial as meaning within 1 degree of the equatorial spin plane of a star system, starstream, galaxy, supercluster, galactic-stream, and supergalactic-stream? 90 degrees? Ditto for the axial center for polar waves, currents and beams.

Remember that in the Plasma Filament -- the highest temperatures, densities and velocities are reserved for the center. As we move outward from the center, the wraps become more and more tangential, i.e., equatorial -- and colder, slower and less dense ...

We are in the process of refining our illustrations of the plasma, stellar & galactic currents/filaments a hundredfold. Both inwardly to the picoscopic and femtoscopic domains, and outwardly in the Gigascopic, Terrascopic, etc. realms. I'm looking for a way to share the illustrations in the Thunderbolts forum, and see if any of the Thunderbolts denizens can add to the picture.

Here is a first attempt ...

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+Millennium ... 2275563356

(I uploaded a 600-pixel wide image to a Google-Plus photo album -- but the Thunderbolts forum editor claimed it could not determine the size of the image.)

Will have another go using another photo album site later ...


Millennium

https://www.facebook.com/groups/296087350585943/

[celeste]

Celeste said: You know how we see current flowing into the sun http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780..103W in cylinders on opposite sides of the sun, yet at the other end of the solar cycle some have shown evidence for a plasma torus around the sun (not current TO the sun)?

Is the second image here what that paper shows? The first image on the left is the Wikipedia image of the HCS. The second image, on the right, is the same thing but with the sheet divided into two tubes. Is that the right idea?

The second image does match what they see. The first image does NOT match. This illustrates where the problem crept in; we can map the image on the right to either their image, OR an image of cylinders coming in from both sides.

[kiwi]

Some thoughts:

Back to basics. To side with one or the other position as to whether the sun internally or externally 'powered' will be found to be an error. Simply put either approach is too limited. Such limited reasoning dispenses with developments at the experimental hands of The Founders of the electrical sciences such as Tesla, O. Heaviside, J. Maxwell, and the like.

Characterizations of conjugate electrical phenomena include:

Conductance
Admittance
Susceptance
Inductance
Reactance
Impendence
Resistance

These terms speak to electrical relationships established throughout the history of Electrodynamic Theory that appear to have been forgotten and are surely neglected when the approach devolves into either an internal or external 'source' as 'cause' for electrical phenomena.

The "founders" ?? ....No Ampere?... Gauss? ... Weber?

Not having a go at you Solar .. you run rings around me in the brain-stakes .. respect

But really? .... Is it just me?

This material is nothing "new" ... Goldminer etc have posted this on different boards here over the years ....

Can I just get your opinion here .... Thanks .. enjoy your posts as always mate


Oh and Celeste also ... thoughts?

Wish I could channel Junglelord at times like this ... he's on the "inside" now Im sure


http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/a ... cience.pdf

[Solar]

The "founders" ?? ....No Ampere?... Gauss? ... Weber?

Not having a go at you Solar .. you run rings around me in the brain-stakes .. respect

But really? .... Is it just me?

This material is nothing "new" ... Goldminer etc have posted this on different boards here over the years ....

Can I just get your opinion here .... Thanks .. enjoy your posts as always mate


Oh and Celeste also ... thoughts?

Wish I could channel Junglelord at times like this ... he's on the "inside" now Im sure


http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/a ... cience.pdf

Now that is some interesting synergy Kiwi. Quite often when reading people's ideas, comments etc I'll write but not post. Believe it or not I actually began writing some reflections on the post you made (here) early this morning and simply haven't posted due to time. I'll put effort into condensing those reflections and do so as your comments there, imho, have relevance just as you suspect.

[StefanR]

Hi Solar,

Did you have a post earlier that is no longer here, just recently I can remember reading a post of yours
about the local bubble, fontal protuberances, core issues, and ending with a question about particular
stars. It was there right, I'm not starting to imagine posts that aren't there?

Very interesting subject and OP, it is broad ranging and I got quite entertained with the "conjugate"-
frame of looking at "things". The story painted of the local neighbourhood and subsequent scale-levels
of view, might be a proper inspiration for someone with video-making abilities to try to show, at the
hand of the various images present in the referenced papers, how the different levels are related. It is
so much information, that it would be a great to see it in video-form as visual-tool.

I will await you reply on Kiwi's post, as I believe, some parts of your story have yet to presented.
Some ideas are popping up though, but my mind is in need for just a little more agitation.

Cheers!

[Zyxzevn]

How do 2 galaxies collapse? Or maybe there is a galaxy with 2 centers.

It might give us some clues about how the electrical configuration of a galaxy is working.
The centers and arms would interact with each other in an electrical way. Maybe 2 centers or 2 arms will even
repel each other, which is in contradiction with the gravity theory.

[Zyxzevn]

I tried to find some colliding galaxy examples.
Somehow they are not so common as you would expect from gravity-only galaxies.

Radio galaxy
(source)

The image looks similar to electrical interactions.
From this image it seems that the galaxies interact with each other, as if they are part
of a even bigger electrical system.

Twin galaxy
(source)
http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/ar ... o9734d.jpg
The 2 galaxies seem to disturb each other. I see no clear attraction between them, just chaotic interactions.

3C75 - Twin Wide Angle Tail Radio Galaxy
From our own forum
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... hp?p=59410

Galaxies in embrace
The last one is called "galaxies in gravitational embrace". I bet they had to search hard to find one.
(Source)
http://www.gemini.edu/images/stories/pr ... ig1med.jpg
The interesting part is that these galaxies are oriented in an angle. Just like you would expect if
they were electrically/magnetically charged.

[Solar]

Going to borrow this post to comment on Kiwi:

Yes I understand that thanks ... But E=Mc2 tells us nothing really does it? ... Weber was criticised for creating a condition that led to a runaway energy situation by the critics of the time ..... rather ironic when you consider modern useage of the hijacked "singularity" in BH equations? ..... In Webers case the claim was easily refuted as indeed the speed of light was the limiting factor restricting that expansion..... The most important aspect is that he understood there needed to be both the Electro-static and the Electro-Dyanamic "forces" combined if a complete understanding were to be had? ......

I cannot connect the dots myself,... or be wholly sure there are actually dots to be connected ..... What I do know is that the current approach(s) seem all to lead to mass confusion ..... And also it seem's the component that is missing is the "longitudinal" aspect of the Phenomena .... that is also embedded in Tesla's work? ........

Maxwell’s dismissal of what he did not understand, increasingly took on
the character of ignorant prejudice. There was nothing original in his idea
of an ether as the transmitting medium of electromagnetic action. Had
Gauss seen a clear solution through such a mode of representation, he
would have developed it. There was none, as the glaring failure of
Maxwell’s theory to even account for the existence of the electron ought
to indicate.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/a ... cience.pdf - Source

You’ve connected the dots pretty well, imho there is actually no need for the question marks in your post. This topic will initially venture a bit off track of trying to establish large scale electrical relationships but an attempt will be made to converge with it . My hope with this post is an ambitious one. Several seeming discordant sources have to be brought to together in order to attempt to convey what the combined efforts sought to describe and work with. Then, what to me is, an elegant example in Nature will hopefully assist to somewhat fuse them together as attempts to express what Nature does quite beautifully. As always these are thoughts for consideration.

One of better ways to study electricity is with ‘living systems’. Circuits, wires, fields, capacitors, relays, switches and the like are okay for analogous purposes but living entities are integrated into Nature and work the way Nature works. Manmade circuits ‘mechanize’ the naturally occurring synthesis of electrical processes and as such Impulse Currents and Oscillating Currents are the forms of electric currents to study. These are what Tesla worked with and these are *some* of the forms of electricity operative in Nature.

If that is too wishy-washy for some just remember that although it has been said in many different ways there exist no astrophysicist or particle physicist that will deny the fundamental principle behind the Sagan-esque recognition that ‘We are made of starstuff’. That includes the electrical aspects of “starstuff” as well. To study lightning in the sky is just as integral as the study of electrical forces in the body.

With regard to the paper Kiwi referenced yes; electrical pioneers such as J. J. Thompson, Nikola Tesla and others have also made contributions to modern theories and those theories don’t reference their work. Ideas and concepts come and go but are also revised, reinterpreted, obfuscated, renamed, denigrated, politicized etc. So, how does one try to tie so many pieces together? This post will broadly attempt to do that just as this thread broadly attempts to outline the electrical integration of the local environment with the larger scale.

The work of Weber, Ampere, Gauss, Thompson, Heaviside, Lodge and the rest can be subsumed under the pursuits of Nikola Tesla which needs to be taken more seriously. To note that electrical forces are a part of Nature and the Cosmos is to then ask ‘How does the work of Tesla relate to anyone's version of any kind of an electric universe? Period.

Weber/Ampere

Along with noting that early developments in the electrical sciences have contributed to other areas such as atomic science as expressed in this doc: “The Atomic Science Don’t Teach” there is also an overall view of Weber’s efforts to join Ampere’s electrodynamics (a term coined by Ampere) with electrostatics (Coulomb’s force) as recognized by A.K.T. Assis’s “The Meaning of the constant c in Weber’s Electrodynamics”. Also “On the First Electromagnetic Measurement of the Velocity of Light by Wilhelm Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch.

To summarize, one has:

- Coulumb’s Force (electrostatics)
- Ampere’s Longitudinal Force (‘dynamic electricity’ or electrodynamics)
- Faraday’s Law of Induction
- Weber’s Constant (the ratio of electrostatic to electromagnetic units of charge formerly ‘a’ and/or a^2 which later became c, the supposed velocity of light)
- Tesla’s ongoing research into the Nature of Electricity and his uncontested but ignored discovery of another form of it.

For Weber consider that, given an electrostatic field and an electromagnetic field, each quality once thought to be types of fluids, the relationship of the ratio of electrodynamic units to electrostatic units yielded a constant:

By 1856 Weber was writing this equation with c instead of 4/a. But Weber’s c=4 is not our c=3x108 m/s …
(…)
This means that c is the ratio of electromagnetic and electrostatic units of current, or the ratio of electromagnetic and electrostatic units of charge.
(…)
Alternatively we might also say that c is the number of units of statical electricity which are transmitted by the unit electric current in the unit of time. - “The Meaning of the constant c in Weber’s Electrodynamics”

What does it mean?

Ratio: the quantitative relation between two amounts showing the number of times one value contains or is contained within the other.

To me this means that in order for the “electrodynamics” (which is to say the dynamics of electricity in Motion with the conjugate relationships between electric and magnetic fields and the currents) to occur there exist a ratio wherein an ‘electrostatic unit’ conjoins to an ‘electromagnetic unit’. It is not a “speed” and neither is it a reference to “particles” but the ratio of that which is produced of their ‘union’. Today the physics refers to this as “merger” and/or “collisions”. One unit being an ‘electrostatic unit’; the other unit being an ‘electromagnetic unit’.

The result of that ‘union’ is called the Planck; which is an actual wavelength. This surely always prompts the question ‘Wavelength in what?’ – but that is up to individuals to investigate for themselves. The relationship can be graphically represented with Faraday’s “lines of force”. Therefore, in the below image the dotted “lines of force” of the electric field ‘cross’ the solid “lines of force” of the magnetic field. They are at right angle to one another. At every ‘crossing’ their union (their cross product) forms a differentiated ‘moment’, a ‘standing wave’, a wavelet, an energy packet, or “quantum of action”:

It has been noted that “Electricity” in the broad sense includes the magnetic field on the one hand and the dielectric (the electric field) on the other; not just electrons. There are of course proton currents, ion currents etc so it is implausible to continually assert that ‘electrons did it’. That is a simplest case scenario.

The ‘union’ of these two “fields” are a part of the “electrification” which propagates longitudinally (Ampere) at the so called “the speed of light” (Weber) such that as a ratio “one value contains or is contained within the other”. Hence the expression electro-magnetic and/or the particle-wave duality in trying to describe the oscillating ongoing dynamic of these dual qualities. The qualities coexist; no “particle” can be separated from its “wave” as each quality is an oscillating simultaneity of each feature being “contained within the other”. This oscillating simultaneity is perhaps why the following paradoxical confusions are observed:

In 1905 the value E, the energy of a charged atomic oscillator, was theoretically associated with the energy of the electromagnetic wave itself, representing the minimum amount of energy required to form an electromagnetic field (a "quantum"). Further investigation of quanta revealed behaviour associated with an independent unit ("particle") as opposed to an electromagnetic wave and was eventually given the term photon. – Wiki

This would then go to constitute what some of the Assis papers on Weber’s work to unify electrostatics (Coulomb) and electrodynamics (Ampere) with Faraday’s law of induction refers to as a “photon gas”. It is the “photon”, if one is in agreement with the corpuscular theory, which is accredited as being…

… absorbed by charged particles. As an electromagnetic wave, it has both electric and magnetic field components, which synchronously oscillate perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of energy and wave propagation – Wiki

Stop. Despite all of that and other confusing elucidations, extrapolations, and theoretics just recall that two “fields” of differing quality conjoin to produce a third form of “energy” which manifest the ongoing qualities of both the progenitors just as surely as a sibling may simultaneously manifest the qualities of BOTH its Parents while still being a unique individual.

...

[Solar]

However, there is always a ‘response’ or Reactance; not Newton’s ‘equal and opposite’. What ‘response’? Typically for a circuital network the dynamic is referred to as ‘incident waves’, ‘reflected waves’, and ‘transmitted waves’ with a ‘transition network’ in the midst of the various waves producing all manner of subsequent waves and ‘wave trains’:

When the incident waves on the incoming lines reach the transition point, currents will flow into the network, transmitted waves will move out on the outgoing lines, and reflected waves will start back on the incoming lines. – TRAVELING WAVES ON ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS L. V. BEWLEY

Some waves will be resonant producing ‘standing waves’, some will be dissonant producing ‘transients’. Yet, a ‘transmitted wave’ encountering a ‘return wave’ (Reactance) along a waveguide should produce a bidirectional integration. A filament. They are serpentine because of what is occurring within their confines. The ‘incident waves’ and ‘reflected waves’, or wave trains, will rotate around each other, they will ‘twist’. Were an observer to gaze down the length of the filament they would observe ‘incident waves’ alternately exchanging with ‘reflected waves’ in circular fashion. When active, take a cross section along the filament axis and one will be present with a spiral. When idealized as minimally active, take a cross-section and one might observe a series of concentric circles.

Spiraling currents with bidirectional equatorial discharges such as with the heliospheric current sheet appear as a scaled down version of a galactic disk. One discharge rotating clockwise; the other rotating counterclockwise - in ‘steps’. Periodically the distribution of the current along the filament MUST interact with the external environment in order to ‘exchange’ with the two fields from which they originate and are still connected. These regions are where stars and/or galaxies are observed to occur along the filaments. More on this in a moment.

Nikola Tesla

In an era of steel, brass, and wood Tesla resonantly went about trying to ‘individualize’ some aspects of what is called electricity with nary a particle accelerator in sight.

As I uttered these inspiring words the idea came like a flash of lightning and in an instant the truth was revealed. I drew with a stick on the sand the diagrams shown six years later in my address before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, and my companion understood them perfectly. The images I saw were wonderfully sharp and clear and had the solidity of metal and stone, so much so that I told him: "See my motor here; watch me reverse it." – Nikola Tesla

[/quote]

Reverse what, the polarity of magnetic field – the polarity of the electric field? Does that say anything? Not really; but it should. All living systems oscillate with repeating reversals of ‘input’ and ‘output’ such that they interconvert (verb: cause two things to be converted into the other) what is vaguely referred to as “energy”. Living Systems both ‘absorb’ and ‘radiate’ simultaneously. That which is local (proximal) is integrated with that which is non-local (distal) and the oscillating between is incorporated with, for example, “particle” and “field” – “particle” and wave. They are inseparable aspects of one another “Particle are epiphenomena arising from fields.”.

The more correct “model” of the Sun is a Tesla Coil. It is through this device that local field phenomena (proximal) is conjoined to far field phenomena (distal). The device is not simply an electrostatic machine but demonstrates what is occurring as the fields produce epiphenomena (the coil itself serves as “particle” and/or Sun) from the convergence of fields while yet it radiates proximally contributing to those very same fields. That relationship (an electrical integration) occurs periodically along the filament axis as ‘beading’ with quadrapole phenomena; not just the dipole - and galaxies. The dipole along the axis for which the currents propagate longitudinally, the dipole along the equator (spiraling current sheets whether Sun and/or Galaxy) which is that integration which conjoins the proximal to the larger field (distal).

There must always exist a way for That which causes so very much confusion (The Aether) to infuse “matter” with its motions (both internal and external) or That which is perceived as the Vis Viva of "matter". As the earlier doc gives account: some of the things that were a part of the developing electrical sciences were not only ignored, some have been renamed. The concept of the Aether infusing “matter” with “energy” in the form called “charge” (thus “charged particles” as known as “charge carries” and are not accredited as being “charge itself”) has now become “the vacuum”, “zero point”, or “vacuum energy” - a form of which, for now, prevents the attainment of reaching absolute zero owing to the necessity of “matter”, even the thermometer’s constituents, to interconvert to sensible heat That which is said not to exist. Yet It has simply been renamed. This was the nature of Tesla’s quest before the modern day physics ‘diverted’ same.

Where is the recognition, incorporation and/or utilization of what Tesla discovered in ANYONE’s "electric universe" idea, hypothesis, or theory???

How does one infuse all of this, and other works, into something somewhat near a cohesive picture to work with? Nature has already spoken by manifesting Its ways throughout from the largest to the smallest via ‘scaling’. Is anyone in physics listening? No. They’re mostly talking about “How Nothing is Something” (you dear reader were long ago already informed of this during the early developments of the electrical sciences and even before that) and, as Tesla said, “they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." As the doc that Kiwi referenced earlier points to - consider also how it is that now suddenly pondering “Nothing is Something” has become somewhat fashionable (?). That fundamental Truth has been historically explained a multitude of times already!

...