Misconception #1 – Where’s the Problem?
by David Drew
Where’s the Problem?
In this forthcoming series, EU Misconceptions, we will take a look at some of the problems that blight popular science. It is easy to put science on a pedestal — and many do — believing it to be free from bias and petty politics. As we will see, however, this is far from the case.
Science is a human endeavour and, much like any other, the truth is that greed and egotism can play their part. In fact, it’s often joked that science proceeds funeral by funeral. Moreover, cosmology (the study of the nature of the universe) is known as the Queen of the Sciences because it provides the building blocks for most other scientific disciplines. This only adds to the inertia against change.
We’ve all heard the platitudes.
“Science is a self-correcting mechanism. It follows the evidence, wherever it may lead.”
Here’s another one.
“Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn’t know. It bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence … It doesn’t get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge. It doesn’t hold on to medieval practices because they are tradition.”
This quote from the British comedian Ricky Gervais also expresses the ideal. Given it suggests that there are only two real choices — science and superstition — it is equally naive. Amusing even, although I’m guessing that’s not what he had intended on this occasion. It’s a false dichotomy, essentially. The point is that legitimate concerns can be raised about popular science, and to do so is not to advocate for a return to ‘medieval practices’. It’s not a binary choice.
A more pertinent question arises. Has a lot of pop science itself become quasi-religious or cult like? It’s certainly not unusual to hear terms like ‘scientism’ today. Rupert Sheldrake, among others, uses it. A noted critic of dogmatic science, and a man with an impressive CV, Sheldrake wrote The Science Delusion, Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry. It was published as Science Set Free in the US.
Furthermore, how can science “know what it doesn’t know”? Isn’t that a logical fallacy, unless we assume, by implication, that we know almost all there is to know save for a few loose ends? This seems hubristic, not humble. Surely, the most exciting thing about science is that we have so much more to learn. Humility should be key.
The Big Bang
Ironically, today’s dominant cosmology, the Big Bang, has theological origins. In 1927, the Belgian Priest and mathematician, Georges Lemaître, proposed the idea with a view to reconciling science with Saint Thomas Aquinas’ theological dictum of creation out of nothing. As it happens, a lot of big bangers also display something akin to a religious devotion for their cherished theory. More relevant, of course, is the evidence, or lack of it, to support an expanding universe.
“It is now a century since the Norwegian genius Kristian Birkeland proved that the phenomenal ‘northern lights’ or aurora borealis is an earthly connection with the electrical Sun. Later, Hannes Alfvén the Swedish Nobel Prize winning physicist, with a background in electrical engineering and experience of the northern lights, drew the solar circuit. It is no coincidence that Scandinavian scientists led the way…”
Sadly, Birkeland died shortly after he was nominated for a Nobel prize. Recognised as Norway’s greatest-ever scientist, he’d have probably won one, too.
Credit: Holoscience.com
It should be noted that the term Electric Universe has been used before the broad synthesis that is the contemporary EU.
The Prophetic versus the Actualistic
Following in the footsteps of its famous predecessors, the plasma universe takes an Actualistic approach to science, that of working backwards from observation. Big Bangers, by contrast, exemplify the Prophetic approach, that of starting out from idealised mathematical principles and selectively interpreting data to fit. Moreover, rather than admit to gaping holes in their theory, exotic hypotheticals are conjured up on a whim to balance the equations.
[display only] “Dark Matter and Dark Energy are the blank cheques required to postpone the falsification of bankrupt theories.” The Thunderbolts Project
Aflvéns galactic model confirmation
As early as 1937 Alfvén proposed that our galaxy contained a large-scale magnetic field and that charged particles moved in spiral orbits within it, owing to forces exerted by the field. Plasmas carry the electrical currents that create the magnetic field.
Alfvén’s model has since been confirmed, as near as damn it. Any shortcomings can be forgiven because he worked without the benefit of advanced space probes and high-powered telescopes.
While there is some talk about solar and galactic dynamos in orthodox science, most of their models tend to focus on magnetism alone … bizarrely, as if unaware of the term electromagnetism.
“In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents.”
Hannes Alfvén, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_ Alfvén#Research
As a corollary to Alfvén’s model, we expect to see some form of intense Plasma Focus at the heart of galaxies. (Nota bene. We do.) Orthodox science acknowledges compact energetic activity in these regions but, again, working with only one tool in its box, gravity, it has conceptualised the mythical Black Hole hypothesis – supposed points with zero volume and infinite mass and density. It’s a bit of a stretch, to say the least, but, in fairness, let’s not forget that black holes started out as a placeholder before the mathmagicians began to believe in their own hype. They’re classic reifications.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard Feynman, 1974 Caltech commencement address, https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/3043/1/CargoCult.pdf
Often described as a successful prediction of Einstein’s general relativity, let’s not forget that Einstein himself concluded the black hole hypothesis was ‘not convincing’ and that the phenomena ‘did not exist in the real world’.
The Plasma Focus
Winston H. Bostick (1916–1991 USA), coined the term Plasmoid. He discovered plasma focus and plasma vortex phenomena, and he simulated cosmical astrophysics with laboratory plasma experiments. Yes, actual experiments.
“…my experimental work in plasma physics for the last 36 years has shown that under many different circumstances plasmas containing nonrelativistic or relativistic electrons can spontaneously organize themselves into force-free, minimum-free-energy vortex filaments of a Beltrami morphology.”
Winston H. Bostick, https://wlym.com/archive/fusion/ijfe/19850101-IJFE.pdf
While it is easy to be critical of the dominant role of mathematics in cosmology today, I always stress that its importance is not denied. The point is that the math should follow the science, not vice versa. This is a case in point. Eugenio Beltrami, mentioned in the quote, was an 18th-century Italian mathematician who developed a powerful differential equation that can be used to mathematically describe the morphology of helically twisted filament pairs, as seen in DNA and Birkeland currents. (Think macrocosm and microcosm.)
“I predict that the James Webb Space Telescope with its vast improvement in sensitivity and resolution, will reveal the existence of the connecting network of helically twisted filamentary pairs and braids even more clearly. We will discover helically twisted filament pairs and braids everywhere we look.”
This was another successful prediction from Thornhill back in September 2021. Bostick’s work has been also verified by the late Hannés Alfven, and his eminent former student, Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Laboratories.
Spot the difference
When a ‘circular glow’ was pictured at the heart of galaxy M87, it was immediately seized upon. A ‘black hole’ had been pictured for the first time came the excited cries. However, in the same breath, the science chatter also admitted that the images were of hot gases (in reality, plasmas) compressed by the gravity and magnetic fields surrounding the alleged black hole (BH). As if this wasn’t bad enough, the science press failed to mention that the picture was a composite. See the press release picture above right, and the actual CHANDRA X-RAY picture, above left.
A Japanese team have challenged the creative BH interpretation. This article from Universemagazine.com is entitled Astronomers question the reliability of the first photo of a black hole. From the article:
“Makato Mioshi, a researcher at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, and his colleagues say that the high-energy jet is missing from the EHT photo. Moreover, in their new photo of the black hole M87* in a panoramic view, there is no ring of light in the form of a “donut”, which means that the photo of 2019 turned out to be false. Mioshi believes that the alleged error may affect how other images of black holes are obtained, including the photo of Sagittarius A at the center of our Milky Way galaxy.”
“Perhaps the same mistake caused a misinterpretation, as a consequence of the incorrect construction of the image of the black hole Sagittarius A in the form of a ‘donut’,” Mioshi told New Scientist.
Moreover, relating to the work of Winston Bostick, plasmoids, at a certain energy level, are observed to jettison plasmas. Significantly, the quote from Mioshi stresses that the high-energy jet is missing from the BH ‘picture’.
You couldn’t make it up. Remember what I said at the outset. Ideology, interpretation, and idiocy. A plasma focus or plasmoid has been pictured, it is interpreted as a black hole within the gravity-only framework, and then the predictable and selective process of science-by-press-release kicks in. It’s sheer idiocy.
Plasma jets vis-à-vis Accretion disks
When astronomers first observed jets of charged particles speeding away from regions thought to be occupied by black holes something was obviously wrong. Black holes are supposed to be insatiable gluttons, after all. Instead of questioning the theory, however, another ad hoc hypothetical was invoked — the accretion disk. These miraculously accelerate material away from a BH just before it gets too close. (Originally, it was thought nothing in their vicinity could escape.) By this sleight of hand the problem of the jets, which contradict gravitational dogma, can be interpreted as evidence for the hidden black hole. Again, you couldn’t make it up.
“We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.”
Evolution of the Solar System, NASA 1976, H. Alfvén & G, Arrhenius, p. 257.
A plasma focus requires no such chicanery — the science can and has been performed in a lab. At a critical energy level, a plasma focus will discharge energy in a collimated jet along its axis. So, take your pick between empirical science, or hypothetical BHs and ad hoc accretion disks. Plasmas are the end result, regardless. As I have said before, abstract math and exotic hypotheticals all too often provide the lubrication for hammering square pegs into round holes.
“Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little.”
Quasars and quasi-science
When we look at a spiral galaxy, in addition to matter ejected from its center, we also see quasars (quasi-stellar objects) and companion galaxies distributed along and away from the axis of rotation … apparently coalescing from the ejected matter. Occasionally, there are ‘bridges’ connecting them. These bridges are plasma filaments, of course.
We mentioned the work of Halton Arp in the first episode of the Misconceptions series. He was cast out by establishment science for the blasphemy of daring to question their redshift dogma. A brilliant student of Edwin Hubble, Arp highlighted numerous redshift anomalies that challenge the redshift as a distance interpretation — the notion that the universe is expanding.
JWST images vindicate Arp’s contention that cosmological redshift is intrinsic and not due to expansion. Arp observed that quasars further from the parent galaxy have lower redshifts and, moving away further still, he observed dwarf and prototype galaxies.
In other words, galaxies are born and die in a living, connected, and cyclical universe. Contrast Arp’s observations with the Big Bang model, where everything allegedly began in a miraculous creation event, yet is now seen as randomn, disconnected, and purposeless. It’s a bizarre dichotomy, so much so that the biologist Rupert Sheldrake has been known to joke, “Give us one free miracle and we will take care of the rest.”
Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry
Science vis-à-vis scientism
As we discussed in Misconceptions Part 1, science is supposed to be a self-correcting mechanism. An eagerness to be corrected is the desired mindset.
“It requires that we adjust the way we look at the cosmos. We tend to overlook the most important features of our stellar environment, without which it makes far less sense. The universe is an all-encompassing electro-magnetic field with some things in it. That’s a pretty simplistic way of describing the magnificent complexity that surrounds and sustains us, but at least it gets the priorities right.”
Hilton Ratcliffe, The Virtue of Heresy – Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer
When presented as fact, theoretical guesswork and assumptions can only obstruct scientific progress. The idea that gravity alone rules the cosmos leads directly to absurdities like this headline from Universe Today. “Imaging the Galaxy’s Centre in Unprecedented Detail Reveals More Mysterious Filaments.” Mysterious, eh? You have to laugh.
The belief that we know almost all there is to know, and that there are only a few loose ends to tie-up, is sometimes referred to as Horganism, after John Horgan, a senior writer at Scientific American. In his book, The End of Science, he rejects the idea that any major new discoveries remain to be made. He argues that it remains only to dot the i’s and cross the t’s.
No one is claiming that plasma universe models are anywhere near complete, or that they can answer all the mysteries of the universe, but a fresh perspective is required to escape the shackles of the cult-like scientism (or Horganism) that predominates today.
EU adjacent language
Dr Ghada Chehade, a Critical Discourse Analyst, uses the term EU adjacent language to describe the growing number of scientific papers that lend tacit support to the electric or plasma universe, while at the same time appearing to temper their language … as if cognizant that something of a taboo still applies to electricity in space.
This paper, for example, is headed the “Coulomb Universe in a Jellium droplet.” The first word could just as easily read Electric.
In another example, this paper from Earth and Space Science talks about the Io Plasma Torus. Simulations of Io Plasma Torus Around Jupiter: Predictions for Lenghu Observatory. “Characterizing the temporal evolution of the three-dimensional structure of the Io plasma torus is essential to understand the dynamics of the Jovian magnetosphere.” It also mentions ion and electron densities. An electric current between Jupiter and Io — estimated to be in the region of two million amperes — is thought to power the glowing torus.
The following quotes have been used in TB videos before. They neatly highlight the science vis-à-vis science denial farrago we witness today.
“A cosmic jet 2 billion light years away is carrying the highest electric current ever seen: 10^18 amps, equivalent to a trillion bolts of lightning.” Newscientist.com, 2011
While this might, again, seem like compelling evidence for the Electric Universe model, the second quote from Phys.org, also in 2011, is having none of it.
“The jets have been shown not to be electric currents, the energy and the physics involved are certainly not electromagnetic.” Phys.org, 2011
Well, well. It certainly seems that daring to challenge the gravity-only paradigm remains an anathema to some, which begs the question: What do they have to fear?
In the next episode of our Misconception series, Part 3, we will take a look at another common question: “Where’s the math?”
by David Drew
I watched the WHY FILES Electric Universe episode again recently and experienced the same mixed emotions. As much as I enjoyed it (and no publicity is bad publicity, or so they say), I was disappointed by the muddled approach and some of the basic errors.
As it happens, I’m a long-time subscriber to WF? on YouTube. (I guess the channel name, Why Files, is a clever play on the better-known X Files, although I don’t recall the show hosts ever mentioning it despite obvious similarities in subject matter.) I enjoy their work, and Hecklefish always makes me laugh. Hecklefish, for those who don’t know, is an animated goldfish who sits in a bowl beside the show’s human host, AJ. A fish that is fast on sarcasm, inclined to radical and conspiratorial views, and who sports a tin foil hat over his bowl. It’s a clever arrangement that allows the two protagonists to spar a little, venture some outlandish ideas, and also provide some balance between the bizarre, the credible, and the baseless. AJ is to Hecklefish as Scully is to Mulder, perhaps.
The Electric Universe episode first aired on October 23rd, 2023, and followed the standard show format. EU concepts were explored enthusiastically to begin with, before AJ appointed himself judge, jury, and executioner, and then proceeded to pass verdict after examining some perceived weaknesses. As ever, the show finished on a positive note. The importance of keeping an open mind and the fact that we always have more to learn. They get it right more often than they get it wrong, IMHO.
It is surprising that they con“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questionedtinue to be surprised by all the surprises.
Richard Feynman
If I had to be critical of the Why Files, I would say the video titles tend to be sensational. I can understand this because we can all be tempted to bite on a little clickbait now and again, and the wording can also be important when gaming the algorithms on social media platforms. Unfortunately, the Electric Universe episode perpetuated several misconceptions. I am not suggesting this was deliberate, and I can guess why it happened. For a start, there are a lot of mischief makers out there spreading disinformation, and there are several misunderstandings about EU ideas still doing the rounds, not least because many of its basic premises fly in the face of orthodox science.
There is another way of looking at it. It is important to understand that while the Electric Universe can accommodate many ideas dismissed by orthodox science, it does not rest on them. Its basic tenets can be tested, and many of them have been verified, even if the implications remain to be fully recognised. Still, some of its more radical and challenging claims concerning cosmology and mythology are more difficult to test. Only time will tell.
The biggest problem I had with this Why Files was that it tried to cover too much in one episode. Different aspects of the EU model like Birkeland currents, the æther, the electric sun, electric comets, planetary scars, petroglyphs, mythology, and the nature of gravity, for example, would each require at least 20 minutes to cover the basics. Those who didn’t already know a little about the EU are likely to have been overwhelmed, let alone confused. Entertained for sure (it’s a great show, after all), but confused all the same.
Furthermore, the Electric Universe is a subset of Plasma Cosmology or the Plasma Universe. While they share more similarities than differences, EU ideas tend to go a step further than the generally more conservative approach of the latter. The following quote from Thunderbolts.info sums up their common ground.
The cosmic theatre has outgrown the Newtonian stage, and we need a larger setting to understand the broader cosmic drama. Instead of a vision of isolated bodies turning gear-like in a vacuum, we need a vision of electrical circuits embedded in a conducting medium whose components drive each other and may be in resonance. We have left the familiar world of solids, liquids, and gasses. We have entered a world of plasma, where the rules are different and more complex. We now live in an Electric Universe.”
Before I list my issues with the EU episode, I have to say I loved the conclusion. It was perfect, emphasizing that so-called ‘pseudoscience’ very often becomes accepted science given time and that the term has always been thrown around with reckless abandon by dogmatists. Science, as they say, often proceeds in three steps. New theories are dismissed and laughed at, then their importance is denied, and then it is pretended they were known all along, at which point the initial hostility is usually glossed over.
The Why Files is a commercial enterprise, I get that, and UFOs, monsters, and conspiracies will always pull in viewers. Regardless, I think more cerebral content can also draw an audience when it is well-presented, and the Why Files is certainly a slick production model.
The WF? EU episode, as per the screen-grab top, is entitled “Gravity is a Lie, Light Speed is Slow, Nothing is Real, the Universe is Electric.”
I’ll take one at a time.
Gravity is a Lie
Miss! Well, straight off the bat, the EU has never claimed that “Gravity is a Lie,” as inferred. The central issue is simple to summarise. While orthodox science works with only one tool in its box – gravity, the EU recognizes that plasmas and electromagnetism (EM) play more important if not dominant roles on the grand scale, hence the filamentary structure of the universe now observed via radio astronomy and, more recently, the JWST.
Hit. At 06:05 AJ says “Gravity isn’t strong enough to keep all this stuff in place.”
As early as 1937 Hannes Alfvén — the father of plasma physics and plasma cosmology — proposed that our galaxy contained a large-scale magnetic field and that charged particles moved in spiral orbits within it, owing to forces exerted by the field. He occasionally used the term Electric Universe. Plasmas carry the electrical currents that create the magnetic field. This EU premise remains controversial to this day, of course.
Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century…”
Hannes Alfvén, Nobel prize winner, and the ‘father of plasma physics and plasma cosmology’
See also Dark Matter below.
Light Speed is Slow
Hit. Well, given the vastness of the universe, light Speed certainly is slow (snail’s pace, even). According to Special Relativity, the speed of light is a constant and the upper-speed limit of the universe. The EU challenges both claims and more. The EU view is that light is a wave in a medium — the aether of classical physics. To begin with, if light is a particle moving through a vacuum, as Einstein proposed, then how can it also display wave-like properties? It should also be noted that Newton viewed gravity as an instantaneous force before Einstein conceptualised as a property of ‘curved’ space and limited to the speed of light. (See also The æther below.)
I consider this extremely important. Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the æther, involving alternate compressions and refractions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the æther.
Nikola Tesla
Wal Thornhill proposed an electrical dipolar model of gravity. The textbook view that gravity and electromagnetism must be unrelated because EM can be shielded and gravity can’t is too simplistic. See also Principia Scientific article.
Nothing is Real
Miss! Although the EU takes a more philosophical stance on science (which was originally known as Natural Philosophy, after all), I am not aware of any of its adherents claiming that ‘nothing is real’!
Institutional science, on the other hand, displays something approaching an irrational fear of philosophical issues. In simple terms, philosophy can be boiled down to three questions: what do we know? how do we know it? and how sure can we be? In respect of modern math-based cosmology, these three questions can be simplified into just one: Is mathematics really an infallible tool for establishing universal truths?
Philosophy is dead … Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.
Stephen Hawking
Typical of orthodox science today, did Hawking’s attitude towards philosophical skepticism amount to a fear of scrutiny? Typical of his ilk, Hawking, after all, was a Theoretical Physicist, not an empirical scientist in the traditional sense.
Check out some of the work of Natural Philosopher Michael Armstrong: The Nature and Definition of Space | Thunderbolts
The Universe is Electric
Hit! At 7:20 AJ says: “If the Electric Universe theory is true, it will change everything we know about physics and reframe our understanding of the Cosmos.”
Cosmology (the study of the nature of the universe)provides the building blocks for most other scientific disciplines. This adds to the inertia against change. Think grants, egos, and prestige. The Electric Universe represents a paradigm shift. It does not claim to have all the answers, but it is at least pointing in the right direction and can explain a lot more than the gravity-only paradigm.
The Big Bang is the dominant cosmology right now, together with its partners in crime, General and Special Relativity. While questions abound about their veracity, the EU is NOT the only critic of institutional science in this respect. As AJ points out, Spooky Action at a Distance (quantum entanglement) challenges the notion that lightspeed is the upper-speed limit of the universe (a central tenet of Special Relativity). Several tests have demonstrated that particles can ‘know something about each other’ over vast distances instantaneously.
My recent Blog Einstein and the Cult of Celebrity explores some of the doubts Einstein harboured about his own work before others ran with his ideas, and ran, and ran.
“Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.” Albert Einstein
More EU topics that do not appear in the title are covered. Again, WF? gets more right than they get wrong, but small errors can distort the whole picture. I will therefore focus mostly on a few of the shortcomings, albeit in no particular order.
Dark Matter
Hit! 06:07: “Gravity isn’t strong enough to keep everything together … everything should fly apart, but it doesn’t … so what is holding everything in place … Dark Matter … but there is no proof that it exists … it’s a Band-Aid …”
Fine, but this also relates to the shortfall in the mass required by gravitational theory. (Gravity is a property of mass.) Working on the assumption that their mathematical gravity-only theories must be correct, orthodox science has therefore balanced (fudged) the equivocations equations with hypothetical entities like Dark Matter. Furthermore, Dark Matter and Dark Energy allegedly make up more than 90% of the universe.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are the blank cheques required to postpone the falsification of bankrupt theories.
Thunderbolts Project
The EU contends that once plasma and EM are factored in, dark matter and dark energy are NO longer required, which also relates to the math problem. The trouble is, plasmas and EM are very difficult to model mathematically, and cosmology today is dominated by mathematicians (mathmagicians some say).
… the underlying assumptions of cosmologists today are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not ‘understand’ how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them.
Hannes Alfvén
The æther
Wide! 32:50: “The medium is the plasma that fills the entire universe. Physicists Kozyrev and Tesla called this the æther … and thought that we could tap into this æther or plasma … this is zero-point energy.”
Well, not exactly. The æther of classical physics is something different from plasma. It can be thought of as a fine elastic medium or plenum that permeates everything. Think of it like this. While electrical currents travel in wires, electrical energy travels in the electrical fields outside the wire … on the hypothesized æther. The filamentary plasmas in space can be thought of as the electrical wiring of the universe. Our understanding of the æther, as it stands, is at a metaphysical level beyond this, although it is required by Maxwell’s equations.
In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents. Space is filled with a network of currents that transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a cellular structure.
Hannes Alfvén
Sure, the æther has a lot in common with much talked about zero-point energy — they may well be one and the same thing — but the key point is that space, once thought to be a near-perfect vacuum, is now known to be alive with plasma and EM, and we still have a lot more to learn about both…
Deep Impact and Electric Comets
Miss! At 35:10 AJ says he can find no record of Thornhill’s successful predictions regarding Deep Impact, the copper projectile that was crashed into comet Tempel 1 in 2005. These are, in fact, well documented, but it is not the first time they have been denied or downplayed. I’m guessing AJ has been misled by some of the so-called debunkers out there.
Among other things, Thornhill stated that the impact crater would be much smaller than anticipated and that there would be a very bright pre-impact flash. He was right on both counts. NASA scientists were astonished by the events that unfolded and expressed their amazement on camera in no uncertain terms: “I’m at a loss to explain it…” was just one typical exclamation.
Anyway, Matt Finn has beaten me to it. He has already Set The Record Straight in this YouTube response from the Thunderbolts Project.
Wal Thornhill
Miss! Wal Thornhill is the man behind the broad synthesis that is the contemporary Electric Universe. (At the beginning of the last century many thought a better understanding of EM was the best way forward for cosmology.
At 35:50, AJ says he can find no evidence of Thornhill’s qualifications, and that he worked as a salesman. Well, Wal received his B.Sc. (physics and electronics) from Melbourne University, Australia, in 1964, and spent most of his life working in software for IBM, not sales. He has his own page on the prestigious IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) website: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/38180764100
Even before university, Wal discovered the work of Immanuel Velikovsky, whom he would later meet in person. Velikovsky inspired him to take a broad and interdisciplinary approach to the sciences, which became his lifelong passion. Much of Wal’s work can be viewed on his website, holoscience.com. In July 2013 he was awarded the prestigious Sagnac Award for Lifetime Achievement at the 20th annual conference of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, University of Maryland, College Park, USA.
It is hard to imagine Wal saying something like “I have no peers,” as claimed, other than perhaps jokingly. More seriously, peer review is problematic, as we explained in the first episode of the Misconceptions series. According to Brittanica.com, “the primary function of peer review is gatekeeping.”
All the same, if Peer review does it for you, Wal, together with Doctor Michael Clarage, has written a peer-reviewed paper on Supernova 1987: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1707326
It seems AJ has been listening to the debunkers again. By contrast, a number of academics and journalists take Thornhill’s work very seriously. For example, Dr Ghada Chehade takes a look at it from the perspective of CDA, critical discourse analysis. Not If, But When: Cosmology in Crisis & The Coming Paradigm Shift, Part 1
The Saturn Model and Immanuel Velikovsky
Wide! As early as the first minute, AJ takes a deep dive into mythology. “Beware the shocking fury of planet Saturn,” he says.
The planet Saturn is not directly associated with terror and disaster, although even today our language retains the age-old cultural ambivalence towards this most ancient of ‘Gods’. The word Saturnian expresses the splendour and munificence of the Golden Age, while the word Saturnine (morose, gloomy) reflects the melancholy of Paradise Lost. Saturday (Saturn Day) was the original Sabbath day.
It should be noted, however, that Velikovsky did NOT propose the Saturn model. He wrote only one paper on Saturn’s role in prehistory, which went unpublished. Inspired by his work, others explored the role of Saturn further. David Talbott, for example, wrote the Saturn Myth, and he did so before he was aware of the role of plasma and EM in celestial mechanics. Before he met Wal Thornhill, in other words.
Nonetheless, AJ provides a reasonable summary of the Saturn model as proposed by some EU advocates.
Hit and miss! 12:40 “When Velikovsky released his bestselling book Worlds in Collision he turned astronomy on its head.”
This much is true. Velikovsky certainly rocked the establishment boat when he concluded that the planets of our solar system have shifted on their orbits within human memory, in pre-history, thus accounting for the paroxysms testified by our ancestors. He remains persona non grata to orthodox science, of course, where it’s assumed the planetary orbits have remained more-or-less stable since, well, the formation of our solar system. This assumption has solidified into dogma. The catastrophist view, by contrast, exposes our existential fears. (Velikovsky later wrote Mankind in Amnesia where he returns to Worlds in Collision as a psychoanalyst to address the traumas experienced by our ancestors and repressed into our collective unconscious.)
Wide. At 41:15 AJ reneges on much of his good work when he says “Velikovsky was probably wrong, about everything!” He could have left this more open. Velikovsky effectively gave a voice to the ancients. He didn’t dismiss their legacy as the work of ignorant, superstitious savages. The Thunderbolts of the Gods, for example, is a consistent theme the world over, but who were the gods, and what were the thunderbolts?
While Velikovsky’s work is still viciously attacked and dismissed by pop science, some notable scientists have been more magnanimous. In 1963, for example, the famous geologist Harry Hess wrote to him:
“…I am of course quite convinced of your sincerity and I also admire the vast fund of information which you have painstakingly acquired over the years.
“I am not about to be converted to your form of reasoning though it certainly has had successes. You have after all predicted that Jupiter would be a source of radio noise, that Venus would have a high surface temperature, that the sun and bodies of the solar system would have large electrical charges and several other such predictions. Some of these predictions were said to be impossible when you made them. All of them were predicted long before proof that they were correct came to hand. Conversely, I do not know of any specific prediction you made that has since been proven to be false. I suspect the merit lies in that you have a good basic background in the natural sciences and you are quite uninhibited by the prejudices and probability taboos that confine the thinking of most of us.
“Whether you are right or wrong I believe you deserve a fair hearing.”
Furthermore, although the Electric Universe opens the door to planetary catastrophe scenarios, it should also be noted that not everyone associated with the EU is on board with the same. Many only go so far as to acknowledge a more significant role for plasma and EM, past and present. Mythologist Rens van der Sluijs falls into this category. He has spoken at several EU conferences and written numerous articles which can be viewed in the Thunderbolts Picture of the Day (TPOD) archives. He doubts there has been any change in planetary orbits within human memory, but argues that the auroras have been far more intense in the distant past, thus accounting for much of the ancient art and tradition that records plasma phenomena. Rens coined the term Plasma Mythology and has collaborated with renowned plasma physicist Anthony Peratt on numerous field trips around the globe. He has also conducted a number on his own.
Peratt’s exhaustive and meticulous research provides compelling evidence to support the enhanced aurora hypothesis. It all started when comparative mythologist David Talbott presented him with some petroglyph images which he immediately recognised as plasma-related. Interestingly, it was the first time Peratt had seen them outside a classified environment! After getting over his initial shock, it inspired him to research them in the field. Beyond the artistic consistency displayed by disparate cultures, the location and orientation of petroglyphs, and very often their 28- and 56-fold symmetry, are also significant.
While his famous stick-man research is eloquently covered by AJ, again it is important to understand that Peratt’s work stands alone independent of Velikovskian ideas. Critics of the Electric Universe very often conflate the differing approaches to mythology, usually in an attempt to discredit all of them.
Yet again, it must be stressed that while the Electric Universe can accommodate many radical ideas — also relating to ‘myth and legend’ — it does not live and die by them.
The Grand Canyon
Hit! 08:12 “The Grand Canyon is one of the most iconic places in the world.”
On the subject of radical ideas. Did a cosmic thunderbolt (giant lightning strike) carve out the Grand Canyon within seconds or minutes? The idea sounds ludicrous on the face of it, of course, but the Why Files cover it well. Conventional geology certainly has a hard time explaining the Canyon. Just to begin with, why did water flow uphill from lower ground to the high plateau? Why did it cut through layers of soft and then hard rock without changing course? Where did the missing five trillion cubic yards of rock go? The Enigma of the Grand Canyon goes into more detail.
High-profile geologist Robert Schoch has picked up on the cosmic thunderbolt theory recently. Before now he has also acknowledged plasma phenomena in antiquity.
Planetary Scars
Although the Grand Canyon is no doubt too much in the way of cognitive dissonance for many, the evidence for planetary scarring on a less dramatic scale is abundant. Take a look at our moon’s surface, for example. The craters are nearly all flat-bottomed and roughly the same depth regardless of size, most of them are almost perfectly spherical, some craters overlap without damaging the symmetry of those that went before them, and they all appear to have been impacted from ninety degrees above. How can the impact hypothesis explain this? You would expect impacting material to arrive from a variety of angles.
Brian J. Ford, an amateur astronomer, argued the case for cosmic electrical discharge more than fifty years ago. The British journal Spaceflight published his work on January 7th, 1965. In his laboratory experiments, Ford used spark-machining apparatus to reproduce some of the most puzzling lunar features, including craters with central peaks, small craters perched on the high rims of larger craters, and crater chains. He also observed that the ratio of large to small craters on the Moon matched the ratio seen in electrical arcing.
Based on this EM premise, Velikovsky predicted that moon rock would exhibit magnetic properties. This was another big surprise for orthodox science.
Planetary scars alone would surely make for an interesting Why Files episode.
The Electric Sun
As mentioned, while plasma cosmology and the electric universe share more similarities than differences, they are at variance in some respects. The PC view, which is based on solid verifiable science — although still largely ignored by orthodox science — acknowledges that many of our local star’s behaviours are essentially electromagnetic in nature.
“The forthcoming scientific revolution is presaged by the rapid pace of discoveries about our own star, the Sun, and its total plasma environment.” Plasmas.org
Wal Thornhill’s EU view goes a step further, contending that stars are powered externally by Birkeland currents in space. The Electric Sun model was first proposed by Ralph Juergens in the 1970s.
“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
The Safire Project
The Safire Project takes its lead from the Electric Sun model. This methodology has inevitably led to some sneering attacks, but the project is still going strong. Now called Aureon Energy, this recent video explains the latest set-up, Aureon Energy – The SAFIRE Project Walkthrough.
The US military has taken an interest, even providing some of the specialist equipment that has verified the successful transmutation of elements. Some might like to read into this.
Lowell Morgan left the project after a personal dispute and has since been critical of it, which some detractors have been quick to seize upon. Although he has some background with plasmas, in this video from 2015 Morgan admits he knows “…nothing about solar physics, almost nothing at all…” (11:48). Lowell Morgan: The Physics of Plasmas | EU2015
Debunking the Debunkers
Direct Hit! At almost 39 minutes it is as if AJ has an epiphany when he says: “Whenever I cover alternative science, I also give the view of the skeptics, but that is when with this episode I started to get upset … there are debunkers who think that Thornhill, Velikovsky, and other proponents of the Electric Universe should be silenced and that their research should be removed from the internet … to protect us from ‘disinformation’ … that’s censorship, and there’s no place for it in science.”
I can’t argue with any of that. I think it’s a fine summary.
EU ‘debunkers’ are also quick to resort to ad hominem attacks. In one YouTube video, for example, a certain detractor dismissed all interested parties as a “gullible corner of the internet.” Contrary to this unfounded generalisation, Quantcast provided the following analysis of Thunderbolts.info visitors not so long back.
A comparison was made with Badastronomy.com run by Dr Phil Plait, and Universe Today, the most popular mainstream astronomy websites and forums at the time.
Thunderbolts also outranked Scientific American and Space.com. This is not to say non-academics are any less intelligent but, well, you get the picture…
The Knockout Punch
Despite appearing to go soft around the 40-minute mark when he goes ‘all mainstream’ on Velikovsky, AJ later regains his composure and launches a broadside against institutional science.
43:10 “Science is now used to give more wealth to the wealthy. Science is used to give more power to the powerful, and science is now weaponized…”
Well, well. Strong stuff.
At 43:25 he goes further: “Science isn’t about truth, not anymore. Promote the right science and get a book deal or a guest spot on cable news … and highly paid speaking engagements. Promote the wrong science and lose your reputation, lose your career, get deplatformed from social media.”
Again, powerful stuff, but there’s even more.
44:05 “When there’s a mainstream view out there that suppresses debate and censors scientists that disagree … that mainstream view exists for money and power, not for the truth, and on that there is no debate!“
Wow. What a perfect and powerful ending! Bravo Why Files.
Re-edit?
Given the fact that WF? shot a little wide on occasion, perhaps a re-edit is in order? Why not WHY FILES?
There is precedence for this. They recently re-edited an earlier video about the Aerial School UFO in southern Africa. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L6M2mRcux4
EU episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIgbsZ05O2A
YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheWhyFiles
ADDENDUM
Hannes Alfvén, Irving Langmuir, and Kristian Birkeland, among others, are not mentioned in this WF? episode, which is a shame given that they pioneered much of the sound science on which the EU is based. Alfvén and Langmuir won Nobel Laureates for their work, and Kristian Birkeland probably would have done so had he lived long enough. He was nominated shortly before his death. Anthony Peratt, who is mentioned, was a student of Alfvén.
Langmuir was the first non-academic scientist to win the Nobel Prize, an accomplishment he realized in 1932. Langmuir probes which can be used in space are named after him.
YouTube video — David Drew: Hit & Miss — WF? and the Electric Universe | Thunderbolts
David Drew, who hails from the UK, has enjoyed a long interest in science, philosophy, and cosmology. He has been involved with the Electric Universe since around 2004 and published his own website, plasmacosmology.net in 2006. The purpose of his website is to provide an introduction to the emerging Plasma Universe paradigm and to explore some of the many far-reaching implications. David was the first to publish videos promoting EU ideas on YouTube and other video-sharing platforms. One of the most popular of these explores parallels with the work of the cult hero, Nikola Tesla and the Electric Universe. David is also known as The Soupdragon.
Ideas and/or concepts presented in Thunderblogs do not necessarily express or represent the Electric Universe Model of Cosmology or the views of The Thunderbolts Project or T-Bolts Group Inc.
