|
|
Our Misunderstood Sun
by Wallace Thornhill
|
01 March 2010
We stand on the verge of a vast cosmical discovery such as
nothing hitherto imagined can compare with.
- Sir John Herschel in 1850, upon the discovery of a link between magnetic storms
on Earth and sunspots, to Michael Faraday, the vaunted experimentalist who was
investigating the links between electricity and magnetism.
|
|
|
>> Sir John Herschel from 1846 The Year-book of Facts
in Science and Art By John Timbs, London: Simpkin, Marshall, and Co.
[Click to enlarge]
|
|
|
Incredibly, one hundred and sixty years later in the space age,
Herschel's “vast cosmical discovery
such as nothing hitherto imagined can compare with,” of an
Electric Universe, remains “on the
verge.” Mistaken ideas have diverted scientists down the
path of Ptolemy once more, adding endless epicycles to theory to save
appearances. Meanwhile the object central to the problem is the same
and in full view. It is our misunderstood Sun.
The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun's energy to thermonuclear reactions
deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun.
- Ralph E. Juergens (1980)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This year is going to be very busy publicizing the Electric Universe in England
and Australia while receiving an award from a European Academy of Science for
the work. So my articles will probably be sparser as I attend to other demands
this year. Meanwhile, observational support for the Electric Universe arrives
almost daily in the scientific press and my friends and colleagues at
thunderbolts.info
provide an up-to-date resource for those following this adventure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Astronomers in the Dark
|
|
|
[Click to enlarge]
|
|
|
|
The Milky Way is a blazing spectacle in the southern hemisphere sky. The stars
remind me of a high school experiment in a darkened room; the radiant pinpoints
of light appearing on the glass walls of an electric discharge tube as a near
vacuum is reached inside the tube. It provides an exciting alternative perspective
of the cosmos that is denied to almost everyone because it is 'off the map' of our
education. Nowhere in any astronomy textbook or magazine will you find mention of
electric discharge in space. The concept of electrically powered stars is never
considered. Plasma science was in its infancy and nuclear energy the new sensation
when the mathematical physicist Arthur Eddington (1882-1944) wrote The Internal
Constitution of the Stars (1926). His theoretical work in stellar physics
seemed to solve the puzzles of powering the Sun for billions of years and how
the Sun could remain so huge against the tendency to collapse due its own strong gravity.
|
|
|
[Click to enlarge]
|
|
|
It is not enough to provide for the external radiation of the star. We must
provide for the maintenance of the high internal temperature, without
which the star would collapse.
- A. Eddington, The Internal Constitution of the Stars
But this constraint arises from the peculiar self-gravitating gas model
Eddington chose and not the star. None of the myriad bizarre phenomena
seen on and above the photosphere are explained by his purely theoretical
solution to the problem. A balance between gravitational attraction and
inflating thermal energy does not determine the size of the Sun. That is
why star sizes vary by at least ±10 percent from the theoretical (see later).
A photosphere is a brilliant electrical discharge phenomenon, which is
little influenced by the physical size of the star hidden within.
The problem of the source of a star's energy will be considered; by a
process of exhaustion we are driven to conclude that the only possible
source of a star's energy is subatomic; yet it must be confessed that
the hypothesis shows little disposition to accommodate itself to the
detailed requirements of observation, and a critic might count up a
large number of 'fatal' objections.
- A. Eddington, The Internal Constitution of the Stars.
Perhaps because of Eddington's influence, his intolerance of criticism and
lack of an alternative theory, no "fatal objections" were raised.
The development of Eddington's theories was ruled more by mathematical aesthetics
than empirics. Somehow an explosive nuclear energy source in the core had to be
initiated and then tamed. The lethal radiation from the core needed to be
contained and 'cooled' by collisions in a so-called radiative zone inside
the Sun. After about 171,000 years, on average, the more benign energy is
transferred to space by convection and subsequent radiation. There is no
experimental confirmation of such a bizarre body composed principally of
hydrogen, transferring energy internally by radiation, or of the hypothetical
thermonuclear reactions at its core. Observations of the Sun are forced to
fit the model and anomalies abound.
|
|
|
>> This simple diagram of the hypothetical standard solar model gives
no inkling of the complexity of the phenomena seen in the photosphere and above.
Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
[Click to enlarge]
|
|
|
We should expect on the basis of a straightforward calculation that the
Sun would 'end' itself in a simple and rather prosaic way; that with
increasing height above the photosphere the density of the solar material
would decrease quite rapidly, until it became pretty well negligible only
two or three kilometres up ... Instead, the atmosphere is a huge bloated
envelope.
- F. Hoyle, Frontiers of Astronomy
Essential to the received theory is the conviction that inside the sun is a steep
temperature gradient, falling toward the photosphere, along which the internal
energy flows outward. If we stack this internal temperature gradient against the
observed temperature gradient in the solar atmosphere, which falls steeply inward,
toward the photosphere, we find we have diagrammed a physical absurdity: The two
gradients produce a trough at the photosphere, which implies that thermal energy
should collect and become stuck there until it raises the temperature and eliminates
the trough. That this does not occur seems to bother no one. But suppose we remove
the hypothetical internal temperature gradient. What then? Why then we see that the
sun's bloated atmosphere and the "wrong-way" temperature gradient in that
atmosphere point strongly to an external source of solar energy.
- Ralph E. Juergens, (1972)
|
|
|
>> This stunning image shows remarkable and mysterious details near the
dark central region of a planet-sized
sunspot
in one of the sharpest views ever of the surface of the Sun. Along with
features described as hairs and canals are dark cores visible within the
bright filaments that extend into the sunspot, representing previously
unknown and unexplored solar phenomena. The filaments' newly revealed
dark cores are seen to be thousands of kilometers long but only about
100 kilometers wide.
Image courtesy of the Swedish Solar Telescope.
[Click to enlarge]
|
|
|
The amazing zoo of structures and dynamic phenomena on the Sun are not well
understood in general, though they have been observed for a very long time.
- Dan Kiselman, Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences,
Institute for Solar Physics
|
|
|
>> Ralph Juergens.
[Click to enlarge]
|
|
|
Simple observation shows the ordered granulation of the photosphere does
not behave as expected of turbulent convection in hot hydrogen. The pioneer
of the discharge model of the Sun, Ralph Juergens, wrote in 1979:
The idea of turbulent convection delivering endless loads of energy
upward from the unseen depths of the Sun conflicts not only with the
ordered structure of the photosphere but also with the observable
integrity of individual granules. The nodules of plasma appear,
endure for some minutes, then fade away... Minnaert once published
an analysis of photospheric behavior in terms of the Reynolds number.
He found the critical value to lie near 103. The actual
Reynolds number of the photosphere, as calculated from observable
characteristics of the plasma, turned out to be in excess of
1011, which is to say, at least 100 million times greater
than the critical value. Clearly, then, any convective motion in the
photosphere should be violently turbulent and highly disordered, as
Minnaert indeed pointed out. Practically in his next breath, however,
Minnaert asserted that 'The variable forms of the granules and their
short lifetimes are evidence of nonstationary convection.' Such an abrupt
about-face is startling. Apparently Minnaert, himself, was disquieted;
he immediately set out to minimize his non sequitur by suggesting ways
and means for disregarding the classical theory of turbulence to make
things come out right for the photosphere.
- Ralph E. Juergens.
Sunspots are dark instead of bright, which is prima facie evidence that
heat is not trying to escape from within. And the Sun's corona is millions
of degrees hotter than the photosphere. These simple observations point
to the energy source of the Sun being external. Add to this the dominant
influence of magnetic fields on the Sun's external behavior and we arrive
at the necessity for an electrical energy supply. It is the
“subtle radiation traversing space
which the star picks up,” and which Eddington immediately
dismissed because his gravitational model required energy to be generated
at the core of the star to bloat it to the observed size.
In seeking a source of energy other than contraction the first question
is whether the energy to be radiated in future is now hidden in the star
or whether it is being picked up continuously from outside. Suggestions
have been made that the impact of meteoric matter provides the heat, or
that there is some subtle radiation traversing space which the star picks
up. Strong objection may be urged against these hypotheses individually;
but it is unnecessary to consider them in detail because they have arisen
through a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem. No source of
energy is of any avail unless it liberates energy in the deep interior
of the star.
- A. Eddington, The Internal Constitution
of the Stars.
Eddington's legacy to stellar physics has been a return to Ptolemaic
science where endless 'epicycles' are added to theory in an attempt
to save appearances.
It is now almost a century since the thermonuclear theory of stars
was formulated. It is an urban myth. Science has many urban myths that
have a life of their own. Such myths are difficult to dispel when eminent
scientists promote them, educators parrot them,
the
media dramatizes them, and students are discouraged from dissent.
It is a strange thought, but I believe a correct one, that twenty or
thirty pages of ideas and information would be capable of turning the
present-day world upside down, or even destroying it. I have often tried
to conceive of what those pages might contain, but of course I am a
prisoner of the present-day world, just as all of you are. We cannot
think outside the particular patterns that our brains are conditioned
to, or, to be more accurate, we can only think a very little way outside,
and then only if we are very original.
- Fred Hoyle, Of Men and Galaxies
Our mental 'map' of the world is strongly influenced by the things we
experience in our early years. Our formal education tends to set the
patterns that we follow for the rest of our lives. But not so for
everyone. There are always those adventurous few who venture off the
beaten path. For them, losing sight of landmarks can be exhilarating,
but the difficulty of relating discoveries upon return can be high.
Not least is the problem of dismissal by the "specialized gate
keepers" of knowledge. Excessive institutionalisation may have
made acceptance of new paradigms more difficult now than in Galileo's time.
“We can only discuss or make intellectual advances by passing
through the existing body of learning. This is such an enormous task,
made even more enormous by the multitudes of specialized gate keepers,
that no one can produce integrated thought.” “...we are
faced by a crisis in language and communication. This crisis is being
accentuated, not eased, by the Universities.”
- J R Saul, The Unconscious Civilization
Having a trailblazer's map, like that provided by Ralph Juergens, is
like having access to Google Earth while scientists puzzle over medieval
maps with their rubric at the borders, "beyond there be dragons,"
and where Terra Incognita is huge and "dark." So it is the belief
that the unknown depths of space are filled with "dark matter"
and "dark energy" and all-devouring dragons or black holes. Modern
astronomy is completely in the dark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The standard theory of stellar interiors is the result of bad timing.
It is an historical accident that is long overdue for investigation.
But the history of ideas and scientific debates are rarely put in
context for students. The losers and their arguments are minimized
and forgotten. However, debates are rarely won on scientific grounds.
Politics and personalities, then as now, play a major role. So the
contests should be revisited occasionally to check the assumptions
that were made. It should be compulsory before indulging in post-modern
metaphysics; the idea that knowledge is constructed, not discovered.
But it is rare today to see a scientific paper cite others more than
a few years old. Notably, those few scholars who trouble to delve into
historical scientific debates find the 'truths' they have been taught
not so assured after all. It is often they who question the consensus
view and find publication difficult as a result. The historical perspective
required for healthy skepticism is lacking in science today.
When we assign names to theories - Newton's law of gravity, Einstein's
theories of relativity - we impede progress by attaching ideas to
celebrities. To question these theories is seen as an attack on the
celebrity, with all of the attendant visceral responses to such an
'intrusion.' But the history of science shows that it is often an
intruder's fresh ideas that eventually trigger the biggest advances.
Dr. Bernard Newgrosh calls such intruders "eminent outsiders."
His favorite example is none other than the astronomer William Herschel
(1738-1822), “who was born in
Hanover, joined a regimental band at 14, went to England at 21 and worked
as a musician and composer. He also instructed himself in mathematics and
astronomy and constructing his own reflecting telescopes.”
Another was Michael Faraday (1791-1867), who
“was born in Surrey, apprenticed
to a book-binder and was largely self-educated.”
Newgrosh notes, “how easy it
used to be even for entirely self-taught outsiders and part-time amateurs
to break into mainstream academia... Not only does this not happen in the
modern world, where academia is distrustful of outsiders and its publications
are by and large closed to non-members of the academic elite but the general
perception is that if you have no academic qualification you cannot be recognized
as having any expertise.” The Royal Society is a club that would
reject a Herschel or Faraday today.
The Royal Society celebrates its 350th anniversary this year. The book,
Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society,
edited by Bill Bryson, is being released to honor the event. Robin McKie, science
editor of the Guardian, in his review writes:
The
book is low, to the point of non-appearance, in human interest and is just a little
bit too smug for its own good. Then there is the creeping feeling of worthiness that
slowly envelops the reader, as you encounter, again and again, noble minds revealing
the wonders of nature. It is like reading a piece of upmarket vanity publishing. I
wanted to like it more but couldn't.”
Human interest comes chiefly from reading about the clash of ideas and
personalities in their proper historical context. This kind of adulatory
book about scientists written by the usual publicity hounds is not the way
to advance science. It reinforces the status quo and discourages dissent.
It is boring and discourages student participation in science, as universities
report with growing concern. To stop the rot requires that we challenge
students with the idea that "a vast cosmical discovery" awaits
the adventurous. And all of the arts and sciences will be profoundly influenced.
What better motivation could educators offer students?
However, bringing about a fundamental scientific paradigm shift is arguably
more difficult today than at any time in history. And nothing could be
more difficult than to wring an acknowledgement that our cherished story
of how the Sun and stars work is wrong, despite the disquiet expressed by
experienced astrophysicists at their meetings. The following quotes are
from a recent colloquium by a well-known astrophysicist and expert on
stellar interiors:
“If we understand what is going
on in the Sun, we can turn and look outwards to every other star and
transfer that knowledge to those other stars.”
“The standard solar model predicts no
motion in the photosphere. The solar surface is a mess.”
“There is a gap in our understanding
of stellar evolution. Some of the things we're finding are not what we
expected.”
“The radii
of some stars are out by ±10 percent according to our models.”
Rapid change needs a metaphorical bushfire to sweep through the 'old growth'
on our campuses. But what 'firestorm' could result from misunderstandings
about the Sun? The
contrived
crisis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) may be a timely example.
But AGW tends to be an unfalsifiable hypothesis in the short term. If you
are buried in snow, the argument goes, it is AGW that is causing the "extreme
weather." We may have to wait for years before it becomes evident that the
climate changes regardless of what we humans do. The cosmological fact is that
the source of warmth, our Sun, is a
variable
star. This was termed an
"unorthodox
idea" as recently as last week on the Solar Dynamic Observatory (SDO) website:
For some years now, an unorthodox idea has been gaining favor among
astronomers. It contradicts old teachings and unsettles thoughtful
observers, especially climatologists. “The
sun,” explains Lika Guhathakurta of NASA headquarters
in Washington DC, “is a variable
star.”
However, with the short attention span of the media, science will probably ride
out the inevitable failed prediction. The jungle of institutionalized and
government funded science is more fire-proof than the major US banks in the
worst of the global financial crisis. And the media is sycophantic toward
academics to the point of being irrelevant.
I would assert that there are probably as many as twenty really major
discoveries in physics which are waiting around for somebody to pick
up and which involve no major facility. I would suspect that to have
a major facility would be an active handicap, since it is usually
the case that the facility dictates the scientist's thoughts rather
than the other way about.
- Fred Hoyle, Of Men and Galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cosmic Electric Lights
The electrical
model of the Sun discards the problematic birth of stars by gravitational
accretion. Stars are formed following
Marklund
convection of charged particles in dusty plasma toward the axis of galactic
Birkeland current
filaments.
|
|
|
>> General form of the magnetic field line pattern in a force-free
axisymmetric filamentary structure. The filament is transparent so the
temperature decreases toward the axis due to a preferential cooling of
the densest regions. So the ionized components of the plasma are convected
inwards with a velocity V across a temperature gradient, delta T.
Diagram adapted from Marklund, G. T., "Plasma convection in force-free
magnetic fields as a mechanism for chemical separation in cosmical plasma",
Nature, vol. 277, Feb. 1, 1979, p. 370, 371.
[Click to enlarge]
|
|
|
|
It is a very efficient mechanism which results in scavenging matter
with a long-range 1/r force. Marklund explains,
“In my paper in Nature the plasma
convects radially inwards, with the normal E x B/B2 velocity,
towards the center of a cylindrical flux tube. During this convection
inwards, the different chemical constituents of the plasma, each having
its specific ionization potential, enter into a progressively cooler
region. The plasma constituents will recombine and become neutral, and
thus no longer under the influence of the electromagnetic forcing. The
ionization potentials will thus determine where the different species
will be deposited, or stopped in their motion.” Stars
formed in this way have an outer envelope of helium and hydrogen. Working
inwards, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen will form the atmospheric middle
layers, and iron, silicon and magnesium will make up the core, which is
cool. There is no thermonuclear engine in stars!
|
|
|
>> This infrared image of the
Orion
nebula shows the new (red) stars forming along twisting current
filaments in a dusty plasma.
Credit: ESO/J. Emerson/VISTA & R. Gendler.
Acknowledgment: Cambridge Astronomical Survey Unit.
[Click to enlarge]
|
|
|
|
Dr. Carl A. Rouse is called “a
quiet maverick of an astrophysicist whose 'nonstandard' models of the interior
of the Sun have been provoking the solar physics community for nearly 40
years.” He found from his study of pulsating variable
stars that there is something wrong with the standard model of the interior
of stars. Using the usual assumptions he could not match the observed mass,
luminosity and radius of the Sun! He found that his model worked only by
assuming the Sun has a core of heavy elements. What is more, he can reproduce
the observed helioseismic oscillations. Rouse's work deserves more attention
because it fits the plasma cosmology story of star formation in a Z-pinch,
with the heavy elements concentrated at the core. It also matches the Electric
Universe model of electric stars, where the solar neutrino deficit is no longer
“one of the greatest unsolved problems
of solar physics” because sunshine is a spherical electric
discharge phenomenon powered by the galaxy. It explains simply why the solar
irradiance exhibits modulation identical to that of neutrinos. Nuclear reactions
occur on the Sun like they do in atom smashers on Earth, by concentrating
electrical energy onto a target.
|
|
|
>> This diagram is from
The Sun
e-book. The simplistic estimate of the size of the body of the Sun is
intended to show that the atmosphere of a star can contribute a substantial
amount to its apparent size, given by the thin yellow photosphere.
[Click to enlarge]
|
|
|
In September last year the National Solar Observatory featured a news item,
"Solar Polar Vortex?":
Typically, the differential [solar] rotation shows speeds of rotation of
about 2000 m/s near the Equator and about 1000 m/s near latitudes of 80
degrees. The differential rotation has undergone changes over surprisingly
short periods of time. In short, the central latitudes have been somewhat
constant, whereas the regions near the Equator and the poles have changed
substantially in a semi-periodic fashion, which appears to be correlated
with the solar magnetic cycle... The increases in spin appear to be short
lived but occur during times of high magnetic activity. In a few cases,
dramatic increases in spin approaching 400 m/s have occurred.
That is dramatic! So is the fact that this behavior of the Sun is not a
surprise in the electrical model. Alfvén's circuit model of the Sun shows
the current flow concentrated at the poles and the equator. The changes
in the solar magnetic field are caused by changes in the electric current
flowing through the Sun. The rapid changes in speed of the polar vortex
are simply electrical atmospheric effects like those seen on the gas giant
planets. In fact, since all polar atmospheric vortexes are driven by
rotating
Birkeland
currents, similar odd features seen at Saturn and Venus
(polygon,
hot spot vortex)
should someday be detected on the Sun.
The renowned solar astrophysicist, Eugene N. Parker, wrote in his Special
Historical Review article in Solar Physics:
..the pedestrian Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary
theoretical understanding. We need look no farther than the sunspot, or the
intensely filamentary structure of the photospheric magnetic field, or the
spicules, or the origin of the small magnetic bipoles that continually emerge
in the supergranules, or the heat source that maintains the expanding gas in
the coronal hole, or the effective magnetic diffusion that is so essential for
understanding the solar dynamo, or the peculiar internal rotation inferred from
helioseismology, or the variation of solar brightness with the level of solar
activity, to name a few of the more obvious mysterious macrophysical phenomena
exhibited by the Sun.
Such frank admissions should be a warning that scientists don't understand
the Sun or stars at all. All of the problems can be put down to an invalid
model. An outstanding clue is the “intensely
filamentary structure of the photospheric magnetic field,”
which is diagnostic of electric Birkeland currents impinging on the photosphere.
Another clue is the even spacing of those magnetic filaments at the photosphere
(current filaments impinging on an anode are spaced evenly apart). And the
attraction between sunspots with the same magnetic polarity seals the argument
(parallel electric currents attract).
A good measure of a theory is its ability to predict the outcome of new
observations or explain them without introducing additional ad hoc concepts.
Stellar theory fails this test miserably. For example, most stars are in binary
or multiple systems (gravitational theory has problems with this too). So it
is vital that stellar theory works for them. However, the theories of mass
transfer between binary stars and their resulting evolution give the wrong
element abundances, even after all of the adjustable parameters are pushed
to their limits. Our expert again:
“Something is clearly wrong.”
“Some of the things we're finding are not
what we expected. We've all been carefully taught in the wrong way.”
“We need theories that are not so infinitely
flexible.”
Just so. Complexity does, however, provide security of tenure. It allows
researchers to waste their talents and our money endlessly playing with
computer models to approximate surprising new observations. The work is
futile because it is not designed to make predictions whose falsification
could end the game. There is no thought of any alternative to the
thermonuclear model of stars. It is a self-perpetuating pastime.
“Even good scientists do GIGO
(garbage in – garbage out). Astrophysicists have a long history of plugging
in the answer they want to see.” The "infinitely
flexible" astrophysical theories are impossible to falsify. Cosmology
at present is not real science.
Theoretical astrophysicists have missed something important in their
education. They are taught a theoretical form of plasma physics involving
frozen-in magnetic fields that was warned against by Hannes Alfvén as not
applying in space plasma. They do not attend plasma science conferences
comparing real plasma lab experiments with observations of cosmic plasma.
They seem oblivious that there is an electrical engineering (IEEE) discipline
of plasma cosmology. Like the stars, plasma cosmology has a bright future.
Countless billions of dollars have been wasted based on the thermonuclear
model of stars. For example, trying to generate electricity from thermonuclear
fusion, "just like the Sun." The thought that solar scientists have
it completely backwards has not troubled anyone's imagination. The little
fusion power that has been generated on Earth has required phenomenal electric
power input, "just like the Sun!" The Sun and all stars consume
electrical energy to produce their heat and light and cause some thermonuclear
fusion in their atmospheres. The heavy elements formed there are seen in stellar
spectra. It explains why the expected solar neutrino count is low and anti-correlated
with sunspot numbers. It explains why many stars are considered "chemically
peculiar." Get the physics right first and the mathematics will follow.
It is no surprise that 'journeyman science' and its spin-off technology advances
more rapidly in the age of the Internet than in the past. But it comes as a
shock that fundamental science is moribund. That doesn't stop some scientists
with more hubris than commonsense to declare a 'theory of everything' is within
reach. Typical of this misguided age is the notion that such a theory will be
found in a concise statement printable in arcane mathematical runes on a T-shirt.
It reveals that perhaps the greatest problem for physics is the cult of celebrity
attached to mathematicians and their consequent dominance of the field. Perhaps
the worrying decline in interest in physics can be put down to the overemphasis
on mathematical theory. The clash of philosophical concepts is far more intriguing
and ultimately useful. Mathematics should be the cart behind the horse of physics,
not the reverse. Mathematics describes actions, it cannot explain them. Mathematics
is not physics!
I am acutely aware of the fact that the marriage between mathematics
and physics, which was so enormously fruitful in past centuries,
has recently ended in divorce.
- Freeman Dyson.
As the astrophysicist said, “If we understand
what is going on in the Sun, we can turn and look outwards to every other star
and transfer that knowledge to those other stars.” But we
have not even begun to understand the Sun or the universe we live in. We must
wait to see who the real scientists are—those who respond wisely to the distress
of encountering fundamental disagreement.
Science is one thing, wisdom is another. Science is an edged tool,
with which men play like children, and cut their own fingers.
- Sir Arthur Eddington.
Wal Thornhill
|
|
|
Permalink to this article.
Email this article to a friend
Public comment may be made on this article on the
Thunderbolts Forum/Thunderblogs (free membership required).
Please visit Wal's holoscience website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YouTube video, first glimpses of Episode Two in the "Symbols of an Alien Sky"
series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three ebooks in the Universe Electric series are
now available. Consistently
praised for easily understandable text and exquisite graphics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
