As History has Shown
Or: How I stopped worrying and learned to love the Aether.
By EU2015 Scholar Neil Thompson
“As history has shown, whenever dogmatic thought and ideology has permeated the minds of the learned foundations, only new views incorporating the anomalies inside the data from outside the orthodoxy will create a new theory.”
Prologue: [Perception, You see what your mind tells you you’re seeing.]
Big words to say that people get stuck in their ways and they aren’t open to new ideas. I wrote that thinking that I was the first to discover it. I wasn’t. However, the words are mine and they were my moment of ‘Eureka!’ I was trying to describe how I came to realize that I found the link to all these mysteries from around the world, from old books to obscure documentaries and I found a rational sensible scientific theory that became self-reinforcing. That is to say that the facts tend to support each other when looked at from a different point of view, whereas they stay anomalies in another point of view. The new point of view creates a whole new set of questions, and renders new directions of investigation. That is what this journey is about.
“Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.” –– Fortunate is he, who is able to know the causes of things.
Virgil lived during a most interesting time of the Roman Empire. As a poet, he wrote that quote in a work called the ‘Georgics’ in 29BC. During that time there was civil unrest that has likely never been seen before in Rome. Many ignorant were being taken advantage of as the republic bled out from its corruption. Senators and great houses alike all wanted their share of civic bounty as they vied for a bigger piece of action. This quote signifies a truth that we all can understand. ‘Knowledge is power.’
Since the days of Ancient Greece, around 500BC, until today, we thought we were the best that there ever was and that we had the world all figured out, mostly…There were things that we could “not understand”, but for those we made general attributes that more or less worked. They were not always based on sound science or even sound reasoning, however, we carried over traditions and stories from generation to generation that made the mysteries a little less frightening.
Today, in our almost eternal arrogance, we are as sure as ever that we got it right. There may be a few more mysteries out there, but basically, we got it. Whatever they thought in the past, they were just silly or primitive, whatever they did in the past might have been inexplicably amazing, but still, they were backward and although admirable, we are much smarter than they were, aren’t we? These are the types of thoughts that go through our minds whenever we think about ourselves as a whole. However, we can see the edges of our worldview beginning to conflict with the reality of what we are learning about the universe and about ancient amazing archaeological discoveries. In our current paradigm and our current understanding of ourselves, we seem to be getting nowhere. Our Paradigm is today’s worldview, and today, it’s clear that whatever path we are on, we haven’t got it all figured out.
The changing of your perception from the current paradigm, the current worldview as a whole, to a new paradigm, which gives a clearer understanding of ourselves as individuals and as a people, and gives a whole new understanding of the solar system, the galaxy and indeed the universe is where we are going. It may be the final piece of a long dream of uniting the sciences and in itself can bring understanding and clarity to the world’s religious tensions. Obviously it seems an impossible utopian fantasy at this juncture, and who’d blame you? A skeptical mind is healthy, it shows your thinking. I don’t present all the below as gospel, or something to believe in. I invite you to challenge the science, look for better explanations and question my assumptions. That’s how I got to this far, I hope that this work inspires others. All I know for certain is once you go down the rabbit hole…
You can’t go back.
That singular moment, in your mind, when your worldview is fundamentally altered as to begin to function within the new borders of what we understand to be reality is called a ‘Paradigm Shift’. It’s also can form a type of cognitive dissonance that prevents two people from seeing things from another’s point of view. In this case it’s not ideological, like it is in most situations, say, between two rival nations, or people from different faiths. Whereas one is often a matter of interpretation, this is not. This is coming to completely different understanding of the basic nature of the universe. It is called a paradigm shift because it does not go back. You shift, or you don’t. You cannot be halfway, and there is not much of a middle ground.
An example of this we all learned as children is the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, invented by over 2000 years ago by a Greek scientist named Ptolemy. Ptolemy used all his observations to describe the cosmos of his day. His day was Ancient Greece.
On the whole, it was a fair assessment of the solar system, given the point of view of the people on earth at the time, and it worked mathematically and predictably. He envisioned all we observe around us is the result of the earth being the center of the universe and everything that moved was on spinning crystal spheres. The stars were pinholes in a furthest crystal sphere, and some crystal spheres rotated around and carried one or two Planets on them. The Earth being in the middle, the sun and moon orbited closest to the Earth. They put spheres within spheres to accurately and mathematically predict the movements of all the celestial bodies. Although, not actually defining and describing reality, it worked mathematically. It also worked within their set of prior assumptions about the universe and its clockwork ways. So, like that system, you can see its naiveté and you smile a bit, but you know it’s completely wrong. I mean the big glaring problem is…
The earth orbits the sun.
Although it took us a while to figure that out. Once you understood it and were taught it, you shifted and you look at people who believe differently as uneducated or misinformed. Your paradigm, your belief, is telling you what you are seeing. Beliefs can be wrong however.
“The truth points to itself.” – Kosh – Babylon 5
Kosh, an alien character in the 90’s TV show Babylon 5, said those words in reference to a small piece of rock, which only glowed in the presence of one who has the DNA of a particular revered lineage of an alien’s race. As that very race mounted their last battle to kill off the last of the human race, the attacking aliens used this rock on a human, and it glowed.
All the enigmatic super old Kosh said was “The truth points to itself.”
Delen, the leader of the aggressive aliens then ordered her entire fleet to stop pressing its advance and surrender to the humans.
It was obvious, as much as it hurt her to admit it, that these humans, whom they were exterminating are somehow related to the thousand year lineage of their most beloved ancestor. She was executing them in his name.
The internal schism in her stopped the war right there. I mean, she was of that lineage too. Over time she endeavored to learn more of the humans and eventually discovered where that lineage arose.
Good science fiction writers have been able to convey the general sense of our diminutive importance in light of the wonders of the universe. They have also struggled with the conveying of the paradigm shift itself. Some good writers took it upon themselves to try and accurately describe the universe and incorporate the mythology and enigmas of our past as well. ‘Stargate’ comes to mind. Mostly though, and recently, we have even begun to lose interest in techno-babble, that science talk that the smart character blurts out so that we have a sense that whatever magic is begin performed by the main characters and evil villains, it is at least scientifically plausible. I feel that may be because our current paradigm has cracks and we are hitting a proverbial wall. We need ‘Faster than Light’ or ‘Warp Drives’ to make us get to the other stars in the storybook. However, we don’t really have any idea how such a device would work. We simply have fallen to Battlestar Galactica’s standard of ‘don’t bother explaining it, it’s just magic’. The Commander says *JUMP!* and you magically appear somewhere else.
Often times, we make assumptions, as part of our nature, based on how we generally view the world. We can use these assumptions and incorporate them into our ‘common sense’ view of the world. There is nothing normally wrong with this. However, I feel that too many of these assumptions have crept into contemporary science and into our lives in general. Thomas Kuhn wrote in his book ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ that “Normal science… Is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like.” Oftentimes, as Kuhn’s explains, scientists will defend that assumption at considerable cost and oftentimes “… suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments.” Put simply, they get stubborn and tend not to give competing or conflicting data much merit if it goes against ‘what they know to be true’, even to the point if irrationality.
While researching this thesis, I was examining the reason for the speed of light to be a constant, which obviously has huge ramifications on physics, I found the basis for such a speed to be itself based on a number of underlying assumptions. A statistical analysis of the speed of light since it was first discovered and measured, until modern times was done by Australian undergraduate student, Barry Setterfield, when he decided to plot all the measurements of the speed of light, from the time since we were able to measure lights speed until today. Although the technology has advanced, he expected that the margin for error would decrease over time and he would be left with a gentle bell curve graph of the data. He found, quite inexplicably, that the bell curve was not there and instead the average measured speed seems to be dropping over time. For the last four hundred years the average speed has decreased measurably. This is an example of an assumption (the constant speed of light) that when confronted with empirical testing is found to be simply not true. However, to conventional theorists it is considered a simple anomaly, as opposed to a major hurdle of universal understanding. One could find many more assumptions in science, and subsequently there have been more unexpected results during practical tests.
Since the days of Einstein we have be working to find the ‘Grand Unification Theory’, the theory of everything. This is the theory that combines Relativity, Quantum and Conventional Mechanics and Electro-magnetic field theory. It’s a lifelong endeavor for some, a hobby of gentleman scholars over the world, and indeed an obsession for some of the most ill equipped to find it, mathematicians. Mathematicians need stuff to model, variables to do math with. But math itself will never solve anything if your theory is only half right. In fact, I can state with some confidence it is these assumptions which have prevented a real Grand Unification Theory from coming to the fore.
To you and me, as explorers of history and life, we have vastly different takes when we encounter the limits of these assumptions of science. We call them anomalies or enigmas. It seems also the further back in time you go, the more prevalent and mysterious they become. It almost seems as if we evolved from complete insanity at times. It seems, sometimes, that there is no way that one can possibly make sense of the world. There are mysteries, wonders and stories that just seem incongruent with what we know of as reality.
In the following chapters I will use some basic logic and layman’s terms to describe to you my journey into this new paradigm and what wonders I have discovered. I will take into account all the enigmas embedded in the data as I can, and correct as many assumptions as I am able. There are times where I will speculate, only because that is all one can do, and for that I will make note. I do hope you enjoy your journey.
No matter what we are doing, we make assumptions about how things are and have been. We take that with us and go from there out into the world and for the most part, this gives man the ability to deduce what happened, and what’s likely to happen again. How we gained the ability to reason is a scholarly endeavor in and of itself only taken on by a few. One such individual was Julian Jaynes. His work on the mind allowed him to put forth a theory that was not wildly accepted at the time, but has a staying power due to his amazing insights regarding the human mind and what they say about the past of humanity. How, only within the last 2700 years have we began to write and think as we do today. In the past, before that, something very odd was going on within our minds; we acted as if schizophrenic. What happened on earth that affected our entire species all at once? All the great thinkers start at 700 BC… Lao Tzu, Confucius, Siddhartha, Plato. It is when we began to reason. Perhaps we simply remembered how to reason again?
We built on that reasoning and created the great scientific institutions which to challenge the stories of the religious ones. This war of worlds persists to this day. The beginning of this battle began almost a thousand years ago the Middle East with a very reasonable man making a reasonable observation and an assumption…
“Either they are the effects of upheavals of the crust of the earth, such as might occur during a violent earthquake, or they are the effect of water, which, cutting itself a new route, has denuded the valleys, the strata being of different kinds, some soft, some hard… It would require a long period of time for all such changes to be accomplished, during which the mountains themselves might be somewhat diminished in size.”
~2 Avicenna (Ibn Sina, 980-1037)
The birth of Avicenna’s line of thinking gave rise to Uniformitarianism. The modern version of these thoughts came from James Hutton, who presented at The Royal Society of Edinburgh the question that then arose in his day, ‘What made the mountains and what made the rivers’? His response not completely unreasonable, for it is what most people think today. The slow action of wind and water over mountainous up welling and other slow erosion processes can account for our varied landscapes. With Hutton’s approach you can place any real catastrophes so long ago it does not shake the sensibilities of his fellow man. Who would care if there was a ‘crustal upheaval’ or ‘lava floodplain’ eons ago? Does it make sense to our world view? Yes.
Why I point this out is that his assumption was that it was either or. Either it was ancient upheavals which carved the river valley, and the river fell into it and took it as its new course or it was the slow erosion by the river itself over the land which carved the mighty etched landscape he was describing. It was very comforting and changed the mind of man completely from a ‘God fearing’ catastrophist view to an uniformitarian view. With that release and comfort, the devout seemed to be more ‘unreasonable’. The stories told couldn’t be true. They are just made up to describe the landscapes we see today after an earthquake or volcano or something. The paradigm shifted and the religious figures seem foolish. This gave the new Priests of those institutions power over time, and now you can hear rhetoric raging nightly from Religion and Science circles.
Since the last myths were recorded, perhaps two thousand years had passed till Hutton’s time. He was no more witness than we are to Moses ‘burning bush’. We can’t even imagine what that would look like or how, through that same bush, he spoke to Yahweh, the Hebrew god, and hear his name. Or did it that even happen at all? Besides, it can’t be that way right? Bushes don’t just burn and not burn. Do they?
Here are some assumptions that I have witnessed regarding contemporary scientific thinking that should be reviewed and corrected. I am certain there are more that you can think after reading this list, but it is my hope that this list will give you an understanding of the depth of the problem conventional science is facing:
– ‘Uniformitarianism’ is a big assumption, predicated on more hope and faith than reality. The legendary catastrophist, Emmanuel Velikovsky might say that it is the methodology of rocking the human race gently to sleep to forget a nightmare it just had. It could also be said that it has its merits, true. The logic that Hutton proposed was sound, given the information he had to work with, but there are gaping holes that don’t conform to the theory. If rocks were weathered by wind and rain, then why are there such jagged mountains in Patagonia? Why are there rocks that look frozen like dunes or V-shaped trenches cross crossing the islands in the Canadian Shield? What type of torrent or glacier made the Fjords of Norway? With that sentiment I can look at Uniformitarianism as an honest approach which has made some big problematic assumptions, but overall, it meant well. However, the sibling of this creed is a bit more perverted in its precepts, and it has developed much more recently:
– ‘Actualism and Materialism’ stem directly from this line of thinking and applies it to every scientific discipline that have been given some quasi-religious importance. It is akin to having religious censors inside the scientific establishment able to deny those ideas which go contrary to an accepted chronology which is biblical and clockwork in nature. It aims to discount certain evidence and accept others as long as it fits through a narrow set of guidelines. Anything else is an enigma or a hoax. I know it seems I am heaping scathing wrath upon much of the accepted sciences. I am only attacking that which is inherently unscientific. We cannot assume, from the beginning, from what ‘must have been’ and move forward under that assumption without allowing critical debate as to its veracity or truth.
– ‘Space is a Vacuum’ is another assumption. This is factually attested to be entirely not true. There is much material in the form of plasma running about in space. In fact, it is conceded that the universe is %99.9999 plasma. Plasma is sometimes referred to as ‘charged particles’ or ‘ions’. Ridiculously we still use anachronistic terms to describe these charged particles in space. Contemporary science labels these ‘Radiation Belts’ or ‘Solar Wind’ but in light of what an electrical engineer would tell you, that would be wholly inaccurate to describe the effects which a ‘wind’ of charged particles represents.
– ‘Einstein is a God’. Einstein turned the world on its head and changed the way we look at the universe. It is clear however, that he died, and in so doing proved he is not a god. The reverence oft attributed to him only holds back the progress of mankind. The man himself was genius and his theories and thoughts are exceptional and well postulated, but as he was apt to change in his humility, the people who have become his followers will not change. It is a sad state of affairs in that situation.
– ‘Sufficiently complex mathematics that accounts for all the variables will reveal the nature of the universe’. This is the current folly of man and perhaps a folly of our culture as a whole. The idea that as long as it looks like, sounds like, it is. It’s a video programmer’s virtual dream and nothing more. Whether stated explicitly I think that it is a fair assessment that we will accept a working ‘Ptolemaic’ model of anything over the real thing. Unfortunately, as far as it comes to the big cosmological questions, this also holds true. Real math is just not real science.
– ‘Religion is meaningless to science’. This assumption is shared with ‘Mythology is meaningless to science’ Now, I am certain that some scientists have done serious academic work on some aspects of these two subjects, so I do not wish to belittle their work. I do mean that the general scientific community has challenged and either replaced the priesthood as the ruling intellectuals and sages of the community as a whole. They guide the thoughts of man now. As such, Religion and Myth are considered complete fiction, and besides some colourful metaphors and wondrous ideas they are best left to faith to deal with. This folly is profound. Science generally turns a blind eye to the single most profound driving force in the history of man, Faith and Religion. However, one can see that the subject is almost too big to get a grasp on to even begin to inquire deeper.
Almost. Within the current paradigm it is nigh impossible to begin to ask the questions that need to be asked. Such as “What is the nature of faith?” “Where is the afterlife located?” It’s hard to begin under layers and layers of ceremony that varies from culture to culture, language to language, and without an underlying thread to tie the religions together what could even be agreed upon anyways?
– ‘We understand the composition and construction of our planet’. This assumption seems to almost not need explaining, as it seems clear to even a general layman that there is a big iron core that spins and creates our magnetic field. So how could it be any other way? The data that is used to determine the inner construction of our planet is fine, but the mathematics and assumptions as to what is going on inside it, however, are entirely circumspect.
– ‘Nebula accretion formed the solar system’. I will bet you a bazillion-billion dollars you cannot rationalize that a collection of multimillion degree gas could ‘gravitationally collapse’ and fall in perfectly balanced clocklike collection of hard metal balls with a light gas ball on fire in the middle. It is just as absurd as it just sounded. Whatever did form the solar system and planets it was certainly not gasses, in a near vacuum, gravitationally ‘congealing’ into balls. I mean the planets and moons are so completely different it is hard to fathom exactly what put this mess together.
– ‘The Big Bang theory is on solid footing’. This is almost a myth it’s so preposterous a claim. Perhaps maybe, back in the 1970’s and even into the 1980’s it could be touted as the best theory to explain the universe, but it has fallen on hard times since higher resolution images with infinitely more depth of field and frequency have been used to look at the universe. The cosmologists looking at the astrometric data have needed to invent more and more adhoc explanations to patch the holes in the leaky boat which is the Big Bang theory.
– ‘We were conscious beings before we learned to speak’. I have never heard anyone actually express it, but it seems evident from almost everything I have read that it is simply agreed that this is a true statement. Perhaps it is the idea that our creator endowed us with a soul, and as such, we were conscious. I can see some reasoning to that statement but it is certainly an assumption and has been ingrained.
All of these assumptions I laid out are only a few that are out there. I challenge these assumptions as non-scientific. They are generally considered true, but should be thoroughly examined.
Footprints of the Gods
Before we begin to decode the surfaces of the planets we should come to terms with what a planet is and how plasma interacts with such balls of rock in space. Firstly, this is not an electrostatic phenomenon, where two charged pith balls push on each other due to same charge repulsion. This interaction is an electromagnetic phenomenon. As the current powering the sun flows in from the magnetic arm of the galaxy, magnetism and electric charge interact forming cellular sheathes around each planet within the suns electric domain. The sun is generating an electric field, the whole of the distance between the sun itself and the heliopause. If you could imagine this as a fluorescent tube from sun, anode, to heliopause, cathode, you would be able to plot a charge density map.
This map will show current density is highest at the anode and most of the glow would occur at the anode, even if the rest of the tube did not have sufficient density to enter glow mode. The sun would give off a near spherical coronal glow, which is a distinct electrical effect. Within that structure would, of course, exist planets. Each would be a load on the suns electric field as much as the sun is a load on the galactic arm’s electric and magnetic field. We can see that each planet generates an electric field and some generate a full or partial magnetic field. Again, we can speculate from there that something distinct causes the magnetic field to arise.
To electrically balance themselves, the planets would want to normalize their orbits to that of the suns current sheet along its equatorial plane. We find the planets do just that. To balance how far from each other they will want to balance their magnetospheres to cause the minimum of electrical interaction. We find that is mostly true. The electrical field and tail of Venus is incredibly long and stretches to the orbit of earth, during their closest orbital point. The same holds true of Earths electrical field. It stretches its comet-like magnetosphere all the way to Mars on their closest point as well. Of course it is no surprise these are comet-like in structures as it is the same principle that makes a comet a comet. The comet is arcing or glowing while the planet is discharging in ‘dark glow mode’. The plasma does not have the current density to actually light up. The sun, as bright as it is only a dimly glowing anode. The ‘fluorescent tube’ we exist in is only in dark glow mode. The solar wind is just not powerful enough to be seen at this time.
This electrical interaction is minimal as long as the balance is maintained, but a comet represents something that spends a majority of its orbit in the charge balance past Neptune, or somewhere like halfway to the heliopause. As the comet comes in and approaches the anode, it is rapidly passing through areas of increasing charge density and must react by shedding ions. We see this as arcing jets electrically machining the surface of the comet, which is simply a ball of rock. The coma of a comet can be huge, many hundreds of times the size of the comet itself. A cometary tail no matter if it is from Venus or from Halley Comet is made up of long filamentary structures which are forming the Birkeland currents in the coma. This is why the tail of comets is always found to not be sublimating ice, but to be incredibly fine particles which were formed under intense heat.
Taking this new view into account, we can interpret that the scars on planets should conform to known electrical scarring patterns in appearance, and should be looked at as footprints of planetary interaction. Other evidence of plasma erosion should be found not only on earth, but on other planets and moons. We should also be able to find recent historical evidence of interactions.
Can we find such patterns of electrical scarring on the surface on planets and moons? Luckily, in this regard, there are almost endless samples that have been taken over the last 200 years of electrical interactions on a myriad of surfaces. Before we underplayed and mostly ignored the alternate ways electrical forces interact, and overplayed gravities importance, a la cart before the horse, we have come to think as Electricity is something we invented. It isn’t. It was discovered. By vibrating these fields, we ‘invented’ radio. This is the way we have with interacting with the universe.
If two slightly magnetized spheres were existing in a gas discharge tube, they would form plasma sphere’s and double layers around themselves. They would leak off charge through these plasma sheathes and this interaction should cause fine surface or near surface discharges. If they only had an electric field and no magnetic field then they would have smaller sheathes around themselves. Now if one sphere were to interact with another they would be when they impinge on the others plasma sheathe. By this way, these spheres can ‘sense’ each other. Until this point they are electrically invisible.
The spheres would begin to push closer and their fields would distort as they attempted to maintain their own electrical equilibrium. The higher charge sphere would send down leaders and the lower charged sphere would send positive streamers. Once connection is made, the return stroke would occur. They would interact at right angles and burn marks into their surfaces, and some material would be excavated should the current be powerful enough.
We now have some background to take up some very big questions. Some of these questions will challenge the way we see the world. To not ask them is very much like hiding your head in the sand. This is where the implications of a new cosmological paradigm exert themselves upon other disciplines and truly ‘Change the Universe’ to us.
The first one seems very safe at this point. ‘Can we find any evidence of these electrical interactions between different bodies in space?’ The modern scientific community, for all their faults of theory, are trying and are simply at a loss to explain the events in space as they occur. Gravity and inertia alone cannot explain what they are witnessing and they are grappling with these images trying in vain to make them fit their big bang cosmology. The most important part of their theory seems to be that they must never contradict Einstein or Newton.
Examining the surfaces reveals of these spheres would reveal some similarities. If we look at the surfaces of them or of other such surfaces, we can see distinct patterns that lend comparably to planetary scars and surface features.
A few of these include:
Lack of debris –
We find no debris asides the rim of craters. Very little debris lay at the bottom of riles. Any debris found is of relatively small size and scattered like dust and small particulates lofted away from the surface.
Circular Craters –
We find circular craters far too often. There certainly should be significant numbers of oblique hits.
Crater chains –
We have lines of craters that cross many globes (including our own on the surface in the deep ocean) where the statistical probability of this happening is almost nil.
Planetary Rilles and Channels –
They begin and end out of nowhere. They have little debris inside them, they criss-cross and ignore pre-existing terrains up and downhill.
Crater on Crater hits –
The sheer number of craters with smaller craters on their rims is statistically impossible with simple ballistics. In addition there are craters which have smaller craters atop there center spires. These craters are referred to as ‘Bullseye’ craters.
On a planetary scale, with two planets whose orbits are intersecting, you begin to see these electromagnetic forces coming into play. The cellular structure of the magnetic fields of the planet, or in the lab, would be powered by the electrical connection to the star, or anode, in a laboratory. The interaction would begin once the planet’s fields touched. At this point the auroras would begin to glow, much like the Tunguska Event in Siberia, 1908, where the sky was glowing three nights before the event and several nights thereafter. Mind you this was nowhere near a planet to planet collision; however, an object of some significant volume entered into our atmosphere and it had a different charge than us. Every object in the solar system, be it comet, asteroid or planet are all the same. They are simply rocks, or rock-like metal. The orbit they hold and the charge they carry is what determines their electrical behavior.
The thought of the craters being created by cosmic electrical discharges is not new. In fact it is indeed very old. Forty five years ago Brian J. Ford, an amateur astronomer raised the possibility that the craters on the moon were carved by cosmic electrical discharge. (Spaceflight 7, January, 1965)
Could this be the case? Could the wounds that scour the worlds in the sky around us truly be mostly carved by electricity? First is the idea even possible? How would planets interact electrically? What would we expect to see should something like this happen?
They likely should have paid closer attention to James Clerk Maxwell as opposed to Einstein. As opposed to basing his theory on unfounded assumptions regarding gravity and the curvature of space, Maxwell’s equations became the basis of modern electrical science. There were no assumptions asides perhaps oversimplification of the specifics, and this has given us the modern world. The most critical assumption was to think that electricity was an oddity and that charge separation was confined to small disturbances within the biosphere. It seems to be quite the opposite; the molecular world of the biosphere is the oddity itself. Ionization is the fundamental state of matter.
We can see then that, in more uncertain times, before the stability we enjoy now would be a sky of chaos and danger. Close calls between planets could cause regional but unlikely planetary devastation. The craters, astro-blemes and rilles found on the moon, Mars and other planets are a testament to these interactions. As more and more data comes in, we begin to paint a picture of a much more dynamic solar system than once thought.
The Tunguska Event
This event marks the first encounter the modern worldview encountered the Electric Universe head on. On this day, June 30th, 1908, at about 7:15am in the morning, witnesses describe a column of bluish white light moving across the sky. It was comparable to the brightness of the sun. Some witnesses say that it was Ogdy/Agda, the god of the local Evenkia peoples, returning to earth. As such they say the event was due to his anger.
As much as that light might have been bright, in electrical terms, it was just the stepped leader charge reaching to the ground. The return stroke is what caused the explosion. The bolide, still in electrical equilibrium with the solar wind at several astronomical units away from the sun, crosses higher and higher levels of charged plasma as it enters into the inner solar system. As it does so, it begins to glow, showing off its normally dark mode coma in glow mode. Once glowing and arcing, it’s easy to see as a comet in the sky.
The voltage differential between the earth and the incoming bolide is what caused this explosion. Once the dangled stepped leaders (perhaps thousands of them) desperately reached for the ground, one connected, in that moment, tera-amps of charge flowed through the discharge channel of the return stroke. This exploded the bolide into pieces and the subsequent airburst caused a 20 megaton explosion. It devastated over 2000 square kilometers of forest knocking down trees like matchsticks.
This event was the first in modern scientific history and still there is mystery and wonder given to the event. Simply the modern paradigm does not understand where these displays of power come from. In a Newtonian/Einsteinian worldview, this is akin to magic. They see the world as energy deficient and with this new view; it is literally crackling with energy.
This event left little evidence of itself asides surface devastation. It was reported by Leonid Kulik that at the epicenter of the blast he found craters, flat floored and about 3 feet deep were found by the first Russian expedition to the area 19 years after the event itself, can begin to see the error of using Uniformitarianism in this world of chaotic and violent interactions.
In Tunguska’s case, it was half of a comet, possibly Biela that hit Siberia that morning. Comet Beila broke into two pieces in 1846 and were connected at the nuclei by a luminous bridge. This comet may have had a play in not just one, but perhaps two of the most devastating events in recent history.
Stellar Evolution and Planetary Creation
“The Sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace, where hydrogen is built into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees.”
~ They Might Be Giants
No it isn’t.
To understand where this idea comes from you have to go back till the time of Marie Currie and the nature of her experiments. She was working with Radium. Once that was discovered it was almost a crutch whose ghost still lingers today as the “source of heat for the core of the earth”. It was seized almost immediately by science fiction as a mysterious power source for power stations and spacecraft.
Romanticized as it was, and with the new properties which were unlike anything we have seen, Radium began humans foray into radiation and its effects. This is not to be belittled; it was amazing work which has helped millions over the years. However, it’s only part of the picture, one of which has been used to cover holes in a theory as opposed to being part of a homogenous whole.
Another carryover of the whole Newtonian thought process of clockwork Keplerian orbits was the “Nebular Hypothesis”. It stays a hypothesis because as a theory is almost doesn’t make sense. Gas and dust ‘congealed’ to form round balls that slowly cooled over time, or, as the case of the biggest ball, lit on fire due to compression at its core, which starts the aforementioned nuclear reactions. The evidence for this is non-existent. There just isn’t any other competing theory that can fit with the Uniformitarian mindset. We know that if we put gas in a lower pressure it expands to fill all available space. This seemingly contradicts the very idea of this hypothesis. We should note that this would not be the first instance where cosmology seemingly re-writes the rules of another since with an ad-hoc rejoinder.
Certainly planets could bounce around back then, and that could explain all the apparently old planetary features and craters we have. However, how much of this is actually fact and how much is wishful thinking? What is the real evidence that puts all the catastrophes back in the realm of the geologic past?
Does the new paradigm have any mechanism for the construction of planets that fits with all the laws of known science?
Yes, indeed it does.
In the laboratory, plasma forms cellular structures. This property keeps different types of plasma from mixing their molecules/ions, for the most part, but they do interact well with other nearby plasmas magnetic fields. The idea of a magnetic bottle for holding in gas at extreme temperatures for use in experimental fusion reactors is an example of this property. The inherent instabilities of plasma are also why these bubbles fail within seconds. Plasma wishes to filament and will not maintain a stable sheet they so would like it to maintain. If there are two different plasmas in different cells, they form “Double Layers.”
There is a potential difference of voltage across a double layer and there also can be breakdowns across a double layer. This can cause a ‘short’ and the energy along the circuit will release into the breakdown and cause a massive outpouring of energy. This is not unlike a short from a downed power line or shorting across a car battery. Too much outpouring of electricity throws breakers, blows fuses and such designed to mitigate the short’s disastrous effects. In space and along these double layers, no such breaker exists and it can be several light years of ions and electrons all dumping their power onto on small solar flare, or perhaps when two planetary bodies approach one another and their magnetic comas interact. This is a scalable phenomenon and there are some examples below. This is cosmic lightning and even shares the same flare spectrum as terrestrial lightning.
In this cellular, fluxing, filamentary universe where shorts and explosions flash like lightning strikes and it literally hums with power crossing between the galaxies and clusters sits our sun. It has a magnetic and electric field, like the earth. Understanding that we need a power source for magnetism, and it is, in itself, a symbiotic response to electric current, we can see there is a likely something inside the sun, and many planets generating a magnetic field. The sun would be an anode, a giant resistor which electricity flows into. The sun would likely have a plasma core and would be a spherical capacitor with layers of differing charge as you approach the core. These fields form the cellular double layer barriers around the planets and the suns electric field reaches out to form a virtual cathode, or Heliopause. It’s not quite spherical because there are other stars with their own plasma spheres pushing against our own.
Each star has this field due to the same reasons why Galaxies act as homo-polar motors. Plasma follows the magnetic fields generated and brings electrons in at the top and ions out along the plane of the disk. This is not a sheet of current, as plasma is rarely smooth. It tends to form twisting filaments which drag material along at different speeds. That is why the ‘solar wind’ has changes in speed from time to time. Each planet would also therefore be a load on this solar system wide current.
So we have a bunch of semi metal and rocky balls immersed in a plasma sea mostly orbiting on the plane, or path of least electrical resistance of a star. These spheres are also endowed with rotation and angular momentum which is far in excess of what gravitational nebular theories can account for. What mechanism creates these spheres and provides the power to set them spinning?
It’s known that our sun is a mid-classed normal yellow star. It’s known also that there are a series of stars in different states of evolution. We assume this, as we assume that they are internally powered. This range of stars can be plotted on a graph and such a graph is called an HR diagram. (Hertzsprung-Russell diagram) It’s a plot of absolute brightness versus spectral class (temperature.)
This diagram is another example of being accurate with your data and wrong in your theory. Dr Donald Scott proposed that if you switch the word ‘Spectral Class’ to a more accurate ‘Surface Amperage’, you would begin to have some idea.
The sun, like all stars, is a conglomerated mass, of which the surface is plasma in arc mode. From what can be seen through sunspots is a colder surface, which is what we expect to find if the sun is an anode. Like a florescent tube, the sun’s surface is a layer of charge. On earth, we call this electrical effect ‘ground’, but it is only ground for us. As we go up, voltage changes, as we go down, I suspect we would find some layers or active charge exchange. On earth we would have the magnetosphere and the ionosphere acting as another layer. This acts as a barrier to certain radio wavelengths and it is in this region we have the aurora. The sun has such a structure and turfs of plasma reach like giant fire tornadoes towards this layer. We see the tops as cells undulating and the corona is where the ions leaving the sun collide with the incoming polar electrons, creating the bright glow.
There is no reason why the surface of the sun would not be like the surface of any planet. Likely it is more metallic and surface scans using iron spectrum filters aboard SOHO has shown what appear to be surface features such as mountains. It is possible that these mountains are temporary as they are melted and deposited elsewhere on the surface. The ion removal would certain be explosive and violent on the sun’s surface.
Other mysteries of heliosiesmology disappear in light of this new state of affairs in envisioning the sun. The variable sun spot numbers, the variable rotation by latitude and its altering size all conform to a load in a cosmic circuit which is variable power input. We feel these effects on earth as ‘El Nino’ and warming and cooling trends over centuries.
We can go back to the HR diagram now and see that we have different classes of stars for reasons that relate directly to these electrical effects of plasma. If the sun amperage was lower, it would dim somewhat, but if it dropped too low the plasma would go to glow mode and exactly like the florescent tube analogy, it would be functioning as promised. The majority of the suns electric field would be in glow mode. Unlike arc mode, glow mode is a sign of lessening electrical stresses. Brown dwarves and red giants would likely fall into this category.
As the amperage increases so does the brightness until it is blinding whitish-blue. These stars are at peak electrical stress and cannot go higher. Although it could be said that there is always ‘more power’, this is true, but at that time we leave the realm of destruction and enter the realm of creation.
Within plasma exists the ability to create, not just galaxies and stars, but planets and likely even life. The electric stress would advance to the point of fissioning the star. A star can only take so much electric stress before those double layers mentioned before break down.
Part of the inside of the star, of opposite charge from the solar ionosphere is drawn out. This is when what we call a ‘nova’ occurs. A nova in this case is akin to star wide lightning. The circuit releases light-year’s worth of electrons in very short order which were along the Birkeland currents electric field, which was feeding the star and dumps it across the shorted double layer. A large ‘glob’ of stellar matter would quickly form spheres as the pinch effect which pulled the stars together during the creation of the galaxy would do the same here. These spheres would be spit out in a blast of unimaginable brightness. The spheres orbits themselves would depend on the amount of matter and its charge. They would balance themselves via the homo-polar motor effect along the elliptic of their parent and distance themselves based on their magnetospheres and individual electric fields. The interactions would slow over time and within only a few hundred or maybe a thousand years it would become electrically stable. The plasma would drop from Arc-mode, through glow-mode and then to dark-mode. All the plasma streams are still there, just not glowing any longer.
Interestingly, the largest sphere would likely orbit close and would likely capture other spheres which were birthed with it over time. This explains the high percentage of binary star systems which have been cataloged. It also explains the large amount of exo-planets that are as large as or larger than Jupiter, and orbit close to their parent stars. However, it makes earth and its solar system an oddity of sorts. If the sun was the mother of the planets, why are Jupiter and Saturn not orbiting down near where Mercury currently is?
It shows now that we can explain, with this new outlook, each of the planets different features and peculiarities. Some may have been born at different times, perhaps maybe even different parents, considering, with enough electrical stress Jupiter would glow too would it not?
With a simple mental exercise of removing the sun from the solar system and using the new electrical theory, the solar system would still need to process all those electrons, and we have removed the majority of the surface area of the solar system. Perhaps Jupiter, Saturn and the rest of the gas giants would be able to takes the heliopause’s electrical power over unto them and glow bright white, or would they fission and go nova to create more surface area as well? Perhaps all the planets would glow, arc, then fission as well. A decidedly grim circumstance in any case.
There is almost no end to the mysteries of our small planet. From the breadth of living beings in the biosphere, from the stratosphere to the core, we are as if fumbling monkey’s just beginning to catalog the wonders of our world. It’s not unexpected that we not even close to deciphering it all. We have a conglomeration of theories and common sense to attempt to make sense of what we perceive and oftentimes they fall far short or even assuaging our concerns let alone truly bringing understanding. I’m impressed we do as well as we do.
Between the theories is where we need to look. We see only what we can easily understand and we miss the critical details that will help unlock these puzzles. The enigma’s we are faced with span from the quirky to the profound. One needs only look into any field of science or the humanities with more than a cursory overview to see there are deep puzzles at the core of most of them. Neuropsychology, Chemistry, Genetics, Astronomy all have deep seated biases and each has been affected by the assumptions in the others. Astronomers are often left holding the bag regarding any new piece of cosmological data. “Unexpected” and “Mysterious” fill astrological literature now. It seems that the enigmas and anomalies in the data are running amok and we are unable to even see a consensus in even metaphysical theories.
Science fiction can only make guesses at some of them.
As it stands it is as if mankind threw out a slew of disciplines and with those was hoping that one would stumble upon the unification of all the theories together. Like fishing, the institutions were thrown into the pond of possible wisdom for this singular purpose, to seek the truth and hopefully reel it in. So far I would say they have lost their way. These same institutions of learning have become the pulpits of ideology preaching empirical science against religion, or now even preaching neo-religion-science part and parcel, and putting a bias on science and the people who are being taught to practice it. They have become the new high priests of the world. It’s as if the avenues of religion and science forgot that they are both sides of an intrinsic human quest to seek the honest truth, if not seek, at least, preserve. As to whether this is a deliberate attack against the foundations of empirical science (objective reasoning) or not is debatable, but its effects are profound.
The journey of the new paradigm is just beginning. Appreciate that you may never have this feeling of wondrous understanding again; the experience is worth having.
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality”
To receive the unabridged version of this 26-page paper illustrated copiously with pictures, email the author, Neil Thompson, at firstname.lastname@example.org.