by Brigit » Mon Apr 14, 2025 8:19 pm
This is another attempt at creating a monthly Wal Thornhill Electric Universe Reader. The purpose is to create a syllabus for continuous study of Electric Universe publications throughout the year. The idea is to collect all April publications in one thread, and so on for each month. There are many advantages to approaching the voluminous papers in this way.
I begin this month with an article Wal Thornhill published in April of 2020 in "The Secular Heretic":
https://web.archive.org/web/20200505055 ... se-heresy/
The Secular Heretic -- Astronomy, Chemistry, Heresies, Metaphysics, Science
The Electric Universe Heresy
written by Wallace Thornhill
April 20, 2020
- In this groundbreaking paper Wal Thornhill introduces a new Theory of Everything: The Electric Universe. Set aside everything you think you know about all things great and small because the ideas presented here overturn it all. Was there a big bang? Not likely. Einstein’s Relativity? Doesn’t hold up. Is the Sun a thermonuclear fusion reactor which will eventually run out of fuel and burn out? Nope. Are there black holes? No such thing. What about dark matter and dark energy? Forget about that nonsense and start learning about the science of the 21st century. “. . .the Electric Universe is the only coherent cosmology that has correctly predicted and explained discoveries in the space age.” For example, Thornhill specifically predicted the unexpected results of the Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1 in October 2001, almost four years before the event. He was alone in successfully predicting what would be seen beneath the clouds of Saturn’s moon Titan.
- image: Globes exchanging electrical discharge in an Electric Universe
The Electric Sun Experiment
In 1972 an article in an obscure journal caught my eye. It was written by engineer Ralph Juergens from Flagstaff, Arizona. He wrote:
"I can find no way to state this diplomatically, so let me be blunt: 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."1
~Ralph Juergens
By attending to all of the most obvious features seen on the Sun, the photospheric granules, spicules, sunspots, chromosphere and corona, Juergens produced a detailed engineer’s model of an electrically powered Sun that seemed to account logically and simply for all the phenomena. The fixed belief that stars are isolated bodies in space, demanding internal thermonuclear energy to power them for billions of years, has resulted in untold waste in astrophysics and nuclear energy research.
In 2012 experienced Canadian engineer Montgomery Childs proposed an experiment to be done independently to test Juergens’ electric sun model. He said he could “find no disparities” in the model, which is unusual. Looking at the night sky, the process had to be simple and well-controlled. Otherwise the sky would look like the fourth of July. So was born the SAFIRE (Stellar Atmospheric Function in Regulation Experiment) Project. As the name might suggest, it was designed to mimic the critical features of the Sun and its plasma environment in a continuous and easily controlled way. Meanwhile the thermonuclear Sun model remains theoretical and unpredictive. Attempts to produce fusion energy like the Sun on Earth have got nowhere. The field of fusion energy is chronically unstable and unproductive.
In 2019 at the Electric Universe UK conference at Bath University, the SAFIRE experiment was declared a success. The SAFIRE team did a number of high-energy experiments, which met predictions such as transmutation of elements and extremely high energy levels, but also showed the potential for remediation of radioactive waste. The Sun’s energy is produced right before our eyes by electrical energy from the galaxy producing benign nuclear energy in the Sun’s atmosphere. Sunspots are dark simply because the body of the Sun is cooler beneath the photosphere! And as uncommon sense suggests, all bright stars continually produce heavy elements, albeit in their atmospheres! So the recent discovery by ESA’s Cluster mission of highly ionised iron atoms in the solar wind is not a surprise.2
- image: SAFIRE
caption with image: The SAFIRE sun confirms the Electric Universe hypothesis that the Sun (and all stars for that matter) are not thermonuclear phenomena after all, but in fact fundamentally electrical in nature. Based on cutting-edge research, the SAFIRE team is developing a new, clean energy, nuclear-plasma reactor, which will not only be able to produce clean energy, but is expected to be able to clean up nuclear waste.
The Electric Universe
The Electric Universe returns to the highly successful classical method of doing science in the 19th century. It adheres to the principles of physics and aims at simplification, in stark distinction to the explosion of imaginary particles and unexplained forces of the last century. For example, the Electric Universe has a single force operating in the universe—the electric force. Magnetism, gravity and the nuclear force are various effects produced by charged, orbitally structured protons and electrons in response to an applied electric force. All matter in the universe is connected by the electric force. And since the electric force can be either attractive or repulsive, there is a balance possible between the force of cohesion and the force that keeps things apart. The universe is in balance. The electric force is instantaneous, which is essential for coherence and stability of orbital systems on all scales. Time is universal. This real-time connectedness of the Electric Universe allows us to understand ourselves and our place in the universe more clearly. We are not isolated and alone in this ‘conscious’ universe of unknown age and extent. We are all subtly connected to each other, the Earth and the Electric Universe.
Electric universe cosmology is both simple and elegant. It could begin to be taught in primary school. Its history is inspiring. In the mid-1800s to early-1900s Kristian Birkeland was performing his electrical ‘little Earth,’ or Terrella, experiments in Norway, and Gauss and Weber were discovering the electrical structure of matter. Weber predicted the orbital structure of the atom, based on his generalized electrodynamic law, about 40 years before J. J. Thomson discovered the electron and produced his ‘plum pudding’ model of the atom. Later, Ernest Rutherford discovered its heavy nucleus and Neils Bohr produced an orbital structure. More than a century later, physicists have still not learned the lesson and have a structureless ‘plum pudding’ model of subatomic particles, filled with fanciful quarks that “wink in to and out of existence!”
Today, physicists labour under misconceptions about the nature of matter and the concepts of space and time; the relationship between matter, mass and gravity; the real nature of stars and galaxies; and the size and age of the universe. So, when astrophysicists turn to particle physicists to solve their intractable problems and particle physicists use it as an excuse for squandering billions of dollars on nonsensical particle experiments, few will admit that both fields are in crisis. It truly is the blind leading the blind. Their mysteries are of their own making.
How has this situation arisen? In the 20th century, technologists perfected wireless communication and computers and got man into space while fundamental science dug itself deeper into its own black hole of complication, illogicality and pseudo-science. The principal cause has been the usurping, since Einstein, of natural philosophy and physics by mathematicians. Einstein, perhaps to his credit, remained skeptical about his contribution.3 Meanwhile, it served the egos of his followers to consecrate his work and treat dissent as blasphemy. Future historians of science will judge the last century harshly. School children in future will know the answer to the basic question, What is the principal force of the universe? as certainly as they presently know the answer to the question, What is the shape of the Earth? They will tell you that gravity itself is a type of electric force. It is an Electric Universe.
Big Nothing Cosmology
Presently, the big bang picture is illogical, incoherent and hope-less. We are led to believe that we are isolated by the immensity of time and space on an atom of rock, circling a dust mote of a star. We got here by a miraculous creation ex nihilo event, followed by a random process of explosions, collisions and accretions (and this in an expanding universe). We are told that life itself is the result of a meaningless sequence of random events. None of these processes are understood. This hasn’t stopped the mathematicians. Until there is a simple, testable theory that can explain the natural spiral shape of galaxies without invoking unseen matter or strange forces, scientists cannot claim they understand gravity or that gravity rules the universe.
The twin pillars of big bang cosmology—Einstein’s theories of relativity and quantum theory—are incompatible, so we cannot use them as a foundation for a real model of the universe. We must discard so-called modern physics and return to the classical physics of a century ago. This, perhaps, is the greatest hurdle—to discard our training and prejudices and approach the problem with a beginner’s mind.
Clearly, to provide a sensible alternative theory we must address the problems with our present understanding of both extremes of scale, the subatomic and galactic. This paper outlines the conceptual possibilities as simply as possible under a number of headings in an attempt to correct our seriously distorted view of the universe.
The Origin of Mass in the Electrical Structure of Matter
The something absolutely fundamental that is missing in our explanation of gravity and quantum behavior is the electrical structure of matter. Here we are not talking about atoms. We must go down one more level and propose that all subatomic particles, particularly the electron and proton, are orbital systems (like atoms) of smaller electric charges of opposite polarity that sum to the charge on that particle. This orbital model was an indispensible insight of the great German physicist Wilhelm Weber in the middle of the 19th century.
Neutrons do not exist as stable particles in atoms (see later). They are a transient coupling of an electron and proton formed to avoid the powerful electric forces in atomic nuclei and active galactic nuclei—an essential requirement in building heavy elements and giving birth to quasars and new companion galaxies from active galactic nuclei.
The electron is not a fundamental, point-like particle. It must have structure to have angular momentum and a preferred magnetic orientation, known as ‘spin.’ There must be orbital motion of charges within the electron to generate its magnetic dipole. The transfer of electrical energy between the charges in their orbits must be resonant and instantaneous to conserve energy and for the electron to be a stable particle. Therefore Wilhelm Weber’s presently dismissed electrodynamic law in fact applies. The same argument applies to its positively charged partner, the proton. This sub-subatomic model satisfies Einstein’s view that there must be some lower level of structure in matter to cause resonant quantum effects. Moreover Weber’s law, being instantaneous, removes the ‘spookiness’ of the connection seen between widely separated (so-called ‘entangled’) particles that Einstein complained about.
We must have a workable concept of the structure of matter that satisfies the observation that inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent. First, gravity must operate at the subatomic level because Newton’s law refers to mass and not composition or charge on matter. The feather and the bowling ball fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum. Second, Isaac Newton wisely recognized the significance of his simple but most important spinning bucket of water experiment, where the water rises up the wall of the bucket against Earth’s gravity. It has been described as one of the simplest and most important of all experiments performed by Newton. Simply stated in a review4 of the seminal work of Prof. André Assis’ Relational Mechanics5:
"Take a bucket filled with water, and set it into rotation (for instance, by attaching it by a rope to the ceiling, twisting the rope and then letting it unwind); you shall see that as soon as the motion of the bucket is communicated to the water, the surface of the liquid will become curved (as a paraboloid), and curved it will remain if the bucket is stopped all of a sudden. This means that the water ‘feels’ the rotation independently of its relative motion with respect to the bucket. So this rotation must be regarded, in Newton’s opinion,
as relative to absolute space" [i.e.
as absolute motion, emphasis added].
~Marco M. Capria
Newton wrote:
"The effects which distinguish absolute from relative motion are, the forces of receding from the axis of rotation. For there are no such forces in a circular motion purely relative. . ."
~Isaac Newton. “Scholium.” Principia.
This should have been sufficient to discard Einstein’s relativity! His principle of the equivalence of his ‘inertial frames of reference’ has the effect of making arbitrary moving observers the centres of their own individual universes, which is nonsense. To do physics requires absolute standards of measurement, not relative standards. If further argument were necessary, Einstein went on in his general relativity to discard the indispensable force of gravity! (more on this below).
- image: Sir Isaac Newton
caption with image: It is critical to note that Newton was very careful to warn theorists away from mistaking what we call “time, space, place, and motion” with their true existence because physics concerns itself exclusively with “measured quantities.” Specifically he says: “those violate the accuracy of language, which ought to be kept precise, who interpret these words [time, space, place, and motion] for the measured quantities. Nor do those less defile the purity of mathematical and philosophical truths, who confound real quantities
image: Albert Einstein with chalk board
caption continued: with their relations [analogies] and sensible measures.” In other words, we do not know true realities or even true measures because all we have at hand are heuristics, and we must therefore be careful not to confuse any clock with real time, or any measure with real space, or shape with real place—all issues he discusses in his definitions (and first principles) at the start of the Principia. Einstein falls directly into this fallacy when he mistakes the measures of relative time for actual time (which Newton called “duration”). Newton’s duration allows for simultaneity, whereas Einstein’s distorted spacetime scrambles reality and makes simultaneous action impossible—an argument ad absurdum that violates reality. Simultaneity is essential for universal coherence.
Magnetism and Gravity
Coulomb’s electrical force law is similar to Newton’s force law of gravity, which provides a fundamental clue. Gravitational mass plays the same role as electrical charges but it is independent of the charge on a subatomic particle. In 1992 Prof. André Assis of the State University of Campinas in Brazil published a paper showing how the works of the great experimentalists of the 19th century, particularly Wilhelm Weber, could explain magnetism, gravity and their magnitudes in terms of charge neutral electric dipole interactions!
"In conclusion we may say that in this model of generalized Weber electrodynamics we obtain: electrostatics as a zeroth-order effect, magnetism and Faraday’s induction as a 2nd-order effect, gravitation as a 4th-order effect, and inertia and precession of the perihelion as a 6th-order electromagnetic effect."6
~Prof. André Assis
Assis noted that the model could also apply to the electron and proton since they exhibit inertia. The orders of magnitude of the forces match observations, which is a remarkable fact.
The noted physicist, Fritz London, who had developed the theory of molecular bonding by the atomic electric dipole force, contemplated an electric dipole model of gravity. Like gravity as we experience it, the London force is only attractive because the electric dipoles can rotate into alignment like bar magnets on a glass tabletop. This induced-dipole to induced-dipole electrical attraction is the force that permits matter to condense into liquids and solids.
Similarly, on the subatomic scale, the Electric Universe model of structured electrons and protons has the gravitational force due to the distortion of the orbits of sub-subatomic charges orbiting within the electrons and protons in atoms to form subatomic electric dipoles, which, being free to rotate, line up radially. The orbital distortion (see diagram below) is then due simply to the offset of the heavy nucleus inside each atom of a body toward the center of mass of that body. Gravity is produced by the sum of the radially aligned subatomic electric dipoles formed by all the electrons and protons within a celestial body. The gravitational force depends only on mass because it is a subatomic phenomenon. And as a subatomic phenomenon, gravity cannot be shielded electrically. So, the inertia of a body is due to its gravitational interaction with all other bodies in the universe. The inertial mass is equivalent to the gravitational mass.
Newton’s universal constant of gravitation, or G, is neither universal nor constant. It is a dependent variable because it has a dimension including mass. G also depends upon stored electrical energy, or charge distribution, within the gravitationally induced spherical electret (or surface charge) of a celestial body. Therefore, we cannot deduce the density or composition of a celestial object by measuring its gravity! For example, comet nuclei are observed to be rocky with sharply featured geology and no surface ice—dismissing the dirty snowball model.
Comets are “Rosetta Stones” for the Electric Sun model.7 Changes in their surface charge gives rise to rotational disturbances and so-called “non-gravitational” acceleration. Moving remotely in the electric field of the Sun, comets have plenty of time to charge more negatively. As they accelerate in the inner solar system toward the Sun the rapidly increasing electric stress on the comet causes a plasma discharge—including a huge plasma sheath (coma) and well-collimated cold cathode discharge jets. Charge exchange with the solar wind changes the mass and moment of inertia of the comet causing unexplained gravitational accelerations and rotational anomalies. Mineral particles and atoms, including oxygen, are sputtered electrically from the surface. There is no “non-gravitational” force on the nucleus. The oxygen atoms combine with protons from the solar wind to give the misleading OH signatures attributed conventionally to water ice from the comet nucleus.8
- image: Wilhelm Weber (1804-1891)
caption with image: Wilhelm Eduard Weber worked with Carl Friedrich Gauss as his assistant and collaborator. With Weber’s help, Gauss invented accurate measuring of the intensity of magnetic fields; and to this day, we measure the strength of magnets in units of gauss. In 1870 Weber—before J. J. Thomson’s 1897 conception of the electron—posited dipolar (positive and negative) electrical particles attracting and repelling each other both in the direction of their flow and—if we picture flows along two wires—laterally or ‘transversely’ between the wires. In contrast, the predominant view today is that the particles are influenced by the field (or wiring, as it is usually understood) and the wiring influences the particles, but the particles do not influence each other. It is arguable that the electron radius calculation and the electron-proton mass ratio were implicit in his work.
Dipole Gravity and Cosmology
Notice that the same electro-gravitational pole faces outward in all celestial bodies. So they repel one another gravitationally as if they were particles of the same charge polarity. The repulsive gravitational force on the Earth from the rest of the universe is sufficient to accelerate the 6 x 1024 kilogram Earth by 60 km/sec every 6 months as it circles the repulsing Sun. Gravity is a real force.
Of course repulsive dipole gravity forbids the formation of galaxies, stars and planets by gravitational accretion, mergers and collisions. It ensures balance and order in the non-expanding Electric Universe. The father of plasma cosmology, Hannes Alfvén, considered gravitational systems “the ashes of former electromagnetic systems.” That is why gravity applies only inside the Sun’s plasma heliosheath, or ‘heliosphere,’ which shields us from the local galactic electromagnetic environment. It does not work for electromagnetic galaxies.
- image: Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)
caption with image: Hannes Olof Gosta Alfvén was a Swedish electrical engineer and physicist who provided many of the fundamental theories of plasma cosmology and won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics. Alfvén contributed our knowledge and understanding of the aurorae, the Van Allen radiation belts, the effects of cosmic magnetism on the Earth, and the behaviour of plasma in the Milky Way.
Intrinsic Redshift and the Real Universe
The observational evidence for repulsive gravity was assembled by the ‘modern day Galileo,’ Dr. Halton Arp.9 The notion of ‘pushing gravity’ has been around since Isaac Newton but has struggled to find a sensible physical explanation—until now, when gravity is finally understood. Arp showed the visible universe is much smaller than cosmologists think because he found physical associations between high-redshift quasars and low-redshift active galaxies. In one fine example, the quasar is in front of the galaxy!10 So redshift is largely an intrinsic effect in the young quasar rather than a Doppler effect from recession at high velocity. Edwin Hubble was right to believe the expanding universe hypothesis implausible.11 The “new principle of nature” he needed was a full understanding of redshift. Quasars are not isolated objects near the edge of the visible universe. They are ejected from the cores of active galaxies. Their redshift decreases and brightness increases with distance from their parent. High redshift and faintness are a measure of the youthfulness of a quasar and not its distance from us.12 What we see is Hubble’s “small, finite universe.” The big bang never happened!
Significantly, Arp also found the redshifted light from quasars is quantised—it decreases with distance from its parent in discrete steps, which proves the effect is intrinsic to the matter in the quasar. The nonsense of quantum phenomena only occurring at the atomic scale is apparent here.
The Electric Universe, following plasma cosmologists, has quasars born in pairs as oppositely directed beams of neutrons, escaping in ultra-high-speed bursts along the axis of the active galaxy’s toroidal dense plasmoid nucleus.13 As the neutrons decay into electrons and protons they begin to slow in the galactic magnetic field and form condensed matter with gravitational polarization and mass. As Arp observed, the quasar increases in mass and slows down. The light electrons are slowed more than the protons by the parent galaxy’s magnetic field, so the quasar begins life electron-deficient. The electrical polarization within the quasar steadily increases with the arrival of electrons from the galactic jet ‘umbilical cord’ and their recombination with protons to form hydrogen atoms. As the energy state (electrical polarization) of the electrons and protons in the quasar atoms increases, the energies (masses) of one or the other will reach a quantum threshold (like an atom) and jump to a new resonant state. This will cause the emitted spectrum of the atoms to increase in frequency—that is, the redshift to decrease—in a quantum transition.
Based on this model, the surprising, alleged ‘accelerating expansion of the universe’ concept is invalid. Supernovae Type 1a cannot be used as ‘standard candles’ because their intrinsic luminosity is dependent upon the power available from their host galaxy; the higher the redshift, the lower the power and luminosity, which has given rise to the erroneous theory of an accelerating expansion of the universe and the introduction of another ad hoc ‘fix’—mysterious ‘dark energy.’ The visible universe is not expanding. Arp found it to be relatively static and balanced, which is why he reasoned that gravity is cosmically a repulsive force.
- image: Conventional redshift diagram
caption with image: The above diagram shows the conventional view of redshift as a measure of distance from the observer. It explains that as the universe expands (a result of the Big Bang at the bottom of the diagram), light is stretched. This stretch is called redshift. The principle is that red is the longest visible wavelength of light. So any colour of light that moves toward red on the spectrum of colour would be considered redshifted even if it is not truly red. The opposite of redshift is blueshift. The Electric Universe contends that class of supernovae used as ‘standard candles’ to measure the expansion of the universe is fundamentally flawed. As Dr. Halton Arp discovered, redshift is an indication of a quasar’s age and its relationship to its parent galaxy. It follows that the universe is not expanding after all and that there was no Big Bang. It is worth noting that the Big Bang hypothesis was first proposed in 1927 by the Roman Catholic priest and cosmologist Father Georges Lemaitre. He saw the event as “the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of creation” (see S. Singh. The Big Bang. London: Fourth Estate, 2004).
Electrical Formation of Celestial Bodies
Plasma cosmology shows spiral galaxies and stars are accreted and formed by powerful long-range electromagnetic forces generated by intergalactic Birkeland current filaments threading the visible universe.14 It is such filaments between galaxies that produce the observed cosmic web. Gravity cannot do that.
The Electric Universe simply states that stars and planets are formed at the same time and in the same electromagnetic accretion process, along ‘interstellar lightning bolts’ within molecular clouds. Inside the Milky Way,
"Herschel has delivered spectacular vistas of cold gas clouds lying near the plane of the Milky Way, revealing intense, unexpected activity. The dark, cool region is dotted with stellar factories, like pearls on a cosmic string."15
~ESA Report, 2 October 2009.
In addition, secondary bodies are formed by electrical expulsion from stars undergoing sudden electrical stress in which the only recourse to restore equilibrium is to expel bulk charged matter in a nova or flaring event. That is generally the origin of close orbiting ‘hot Jupiters,’ and the many satellites of more distant gas giant planets in the process of capture of a gas giant by a star. ‘Accretion disks’ are generally ‘expulsion disks.’ For example, the ephemeral icy rings of Saturn signify Saturn’s recent electrical capture by the Sun, causing an expulsion event from the planet. This gains profound importance when it was subsequently found that the water on Earth matches that found at Saturn!16 The mystery of the origin of Earth’s abundance of water may finally be solved.
The electrical birth process also explains the mystery of rotation of galaxies, stars and planets. Birkeland currents are a twisted pair of current filaments, a configuration familiar to electrical engineers for reducing electromagnetic radiation, or energy loss, from wire pairs. Accreted matter spirals in toward the axis of the twin filaments to form a single rotating body, or a pair of close-orbiting bodies. “The origin of binary stars has long been one of the central problems of astronomy.”17 It has been found that protostars and young stars are more likely to be found in binary pairs inside “elongated core structures” strung at intervals along a cosmic Birkeland current channel inside a molecular cloud. Similarly, interplanetary Birkeland current “thunderbolts” during close encounters may form smaller binaries in dusty plasma that may fuse together to form the classic dumb-bell shape, seen in many comets and asteroids. And the puzzling edge-on ‘boxy/peanut’ shaped central bulge of some spiral galaxies may be simply explained using this model. Gravitational accretion theory doesn’t work.
- image: Birkeland currents central to the Electric Universe
caption with image: Left to right, top to bottom in the above image: (1) the galactic network of Birkeland currents; (2) the internal directional turning of Birkeland currents displaying counter rotation of layers; (3) the north pole of Saturn displaying layers that when viewed in motion, display counter rotation (see NASA footage); (4) the north pole of Jupiter displaying similar counter rotation (see NASA footage here as well). The foremost expert on Birkeland currents is Donald Scott. For an excellent introduction to the subject, check out Scott’s model here.
video embedded
caption with video: Watch this video to better understand Birkeland currents and our solar system.
Electric Stars
Stars form “like pearls on a cosmic string” along Birkeland current channels in molecular clouds. The electromagnetic accretion process known as Marklund convection18 separates the elements by increasing ionization potential, radially from the current channel axis. The result is the heavier elements are coolest and found closest to the axis while helium and hydrogen form the outermost atmosphere. The hypothetical extreme conditions for thermonuclear energy generation in the core of a star are not fulfilled. Planets are formed in the same process. The distinction is simply due to a body’s mass and response to the ambient plasma electrical environment. The stars and planets grow in mass and are eventually left behind as their electrical umbilical cord snakes about.19
However, the stars continue to act as a focus for ‘dark mode’ current from ubiquitous lower energy Birkeland current filaments, like those traced near our solar system by their radiation at radio frequencies.20
Note that the mass of a body cannot tell us anything about its composition since mass is a property of matter, not the amount of matter. Mass is an energetic variable, according to E=mc2. The electric charge on the surface of a celestial body will contribute to the strength of the dipole field within the body and so affect its gravitational mass. For example, the existence on Earth of megafauna and megaflora in the past signals that the Earth has had a dramatic change in its electrical environment in the geologically recent past. It has been calculated on the basis of the cross-sectional strength of bone and muscle that for those giants to exist and be fleet-footed the Earth’s former gravity must have been as low as a third or a quarter of today’s strength.21 Each planet in the solar system has its own history. It is obviously not a graded system formed by primordial accretion.
Newton’s law of gravity, in the repulsive sense, applies in interplanetary space beyond their gravitationally attractive ‘spheres of influence.’ Small bodies within those spheres of influence are dominated by the attractive polarization induced by the planet. We are simply attracted like iron filings to the nearest pole—the Earth’s surface. We are intimately connected as part of the Earth.
But perhaps the most confronting idea is that dipolar gravity, with the same pole facing inwards, will tend to produce hollow shells rather than condensed bodies with dense cores. So, there are no super-dense celestial objects like white dwarfs, neutron stars or black holes. A shell model of the Earth makes simple sense of deep earthquake data.22 The standard model of the Earth’s interior requires ad hoc inner and outer cores with special properties in a complicated attempt to explain seismic anomalies. Meanwhile, it has been found that the so called ‘core-mantle boundary’ is much rougher than the Earth’s surface. This is to be expected since matter will fall upwards to the inner surface during the Earth’s formation. And there are no internal erosive forces.
Of course, hollowness would also contribute to the low mass and calculated low densities of some celestial bodies. The Sun’s mean density is only 25 percent of the Earth’s mean density (but its photosphere is not a surface, it is the top of the Sun’s ionosphere). The planet Saturn would float on water. Comets have rocky and sandy surfaces, as shown by the Deep Impact experiment and comet 67P, yet they exhibit very low densities. Significantly, researchers recently found “sand-like material under the rocky surface of asteroid Ryugu” when they fired a 2-kilogram copper ball at the asteroid at 7,200 km/h.”23
The neutron and the nucleus
We observe that a neutron combines the charges from a proton and an electron in a relatively long-lived metastable resonance outside the atomic nucleus, which decays in minutes. Its decay must have a cause and seems to involve an interaction with a neutrino. But we have no evidence that neutrons exist in the nucleus. There seems no binding energy within nuclei that might provide the known needed binding energy of neutrons.
The Electric Universe model has only one force—the electric force. So neutrons cannot exist in the nuclei of atoms. Atomic nuclei are composed of protons held together by a sufficient number of electrons to occupy a geometric structure where the repulsive force between protons is offset by the proximity of the electrons between them such that the resultant force is attractive. The nucleus is made up of protons and shared electrons. It is a ‘structured atom model’ that is being investigated and shows great promise in understanding details of elemental isotopes, their stability and their chemistry.24 There is no such object as a neutron star. Plasma cosmologists have explained the detailed signal from pulsing neutron stars in terms of electrical activity in a normal stellar magnetosphere.25
A model for the neutrino and the essential æther
The famous equation, E = mc2, is an example where books and encyclopaedias slip unnoticed into referring to mass ‘m’ not as a phenomenon related to matter, but as matter itself. Yet this simple equation is telling us some profound truths that are fundamental for cosmology. They are—energy, mass and the speed of light are all attributes of matter.
This realization sweeps away the fog of modern metaphysics instantly. Mass depends on the energy of the matter. And the speed of light is not a universal constant because it is affected by the material medium it is passing through. Maxwell’s æther must be reinstated. The universe has a material medium, essential for the transmission of light. The ‘perfect vacuum’ doesn’t exist. And photons don’t exist because there can be no particle with zero mass.
Fundamentally, energy is bound up in the electromagnetic structure of matter. Einstein was wrong when he spoke in 1920, “according to the special theory of relativity, both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy.”26 ‘Energy’ remains undefined in physics because of the confusion. The Electric Universe defines energy as a measure of the motion of charged matter with respect to all other charged matter in the universe. Uncharged subatomic particles are included since they are composites of equal numbers of oppositely charged sub-particles.
Without matter there can be no ‘pure energy’ at the instant of the Big Bang or ‘vacuum energy’ afterwards. Matter cannot be annihilated. The term ‘antimatter’ is misleading and incorrect. The merging of a particle and its ‘anti-particle’ must result in the release of stored electromagnetic energy and the coalescence of the combined constituent sub-particles to form a collapsed, stable particle of vanishing internal energy, or mass. Such particles are called neutrinos. The process can be reversed if a neutrino receives sufficient resonant electromagnetic energy that it re-forms a particle and its mirror image particle. On this topic Dr. Halton Arp writes:
"there can be no such thing as ‘new’ matter. So when we speak of creation of matter we do not mean matter coming into our universe from somewhere else (there is nowhere else) or from nothing. We must mean the transformation of previously existing mass-energy."27
~Halton Arp
Empty space is not empty. It is an æther of neutrinos. They are the sources of matter in the universe, awaiting the burst of gamma rays to open them to form the stuff of atoms. Being composed of orbiting charged sub-particles, neutrinos form the neutral dielectric ‘æther’ required by Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism. It is the medium through which the electric force is transferred directly via chains of electric dipoles.
The real nature of light
What is the real nature of light? It cannot be both a wave and a particle. Einstein’s special theory of relativity discarded the medium (æther) required by James Clerk Maxwell for the transmission of light. Einstein was confirmed in his view by the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, that experiment showed a residual, which can be explained by the æther being ‘dragged’ along by the rotating Earth. This was later confirmed by far more rigorous repeats of the experiment by Dayton Miller. The Dayton Miller story makes interesting reading. If it weren’t for the extraordinary power of self-delusion, commonsense would tell us that a wave can’t exist in nothing. Maxwell was right, light is a transverse electromagnetic wave moving through a dielectric medium, the æther.
The universe is teeming with neutrinos. And since neutrinos are resonant orbiting systems of charge, like all matter, they will respond to the electric force by distorting to form an electric dipole aligned with the electric field. The speed of light in a vacuum may be seen as related to the moment of inertia of the neutrino in response to an alternating transverse electric force.
What about the bending of starlight by the Sun, which discovery raised Einstein to megastar status? The residual found in the Michelson-Morley experiments shows that the Earth and all ponderable bodies ‘drag’ an æther ‘atmosphere’ along with them. The bending of starlight near the Sun is the effect expected of an extensive neutrino atmosphere held to the Sun by gravity. Neutrinos do, after all, have some mass. Light will be slowed in the denser medium—causing normal refraction or bending of light.
- image: Michelson-Morley experiment deemed faulty by the Electric Universe
caption with image: The Michelson-Morley Experiment is conventionally taken to prove the non-existence of the aether. Essentially the idea was to use the interference properties of light waves to produce a dimming and brightening of observed light. If one simply merges two rays of light travelling at the same speed, their wave patterns (imagine undulating waves) will be synchronized (i.e. their crests and troughs will align). This alignment will result in a brighter light. If, however, one ray in this scenario falls behind the other such that one’s trough converges with the other’s crest, an observable dimming will take place. The assumption of the Michelson-Morley Experiment was that the aether is a flowing current of some sort. If it flows, goes the reasoning, then it must carry along waves of light slower upstream, faster downstream and at another rate cross-stream. Since light speeds could only be measured on a two-way trip, Michelson set up an experiment with a semi-reflective mirror that would allow half the light of each of two rays to pass through at right angles to each other with the whole apparatus set upon a rotating table. See here for an animated view of the experiment. When turning the table, one should observe a dimming and brightening of the light due to the interference of the aether flow. Although this experiment was performed under various conditions, no such fluctuation was observed.
The light-speed non-barrier
We must give up the notion that the speed of light is a real speed barrier for the transfer of information. Light speed may seem fast on our puny scale, but on a cosmic scale it is glacial. Imposing such a speed limit renders the universe totally incoherent. Weber’s electrodynamics, which encompasses gravity, is instantaneous. There would be no stable atoms, planetary systems or galaxies if this were not so.
We have direct evidence of the superluminal action of the electric force, given that gravity is a longitudinal dipolar electric force. Indeed, Newton’s celebrated equation requires that gravity act instantly on the scale of the solar system. The Earth responds to the gravitational pull of the Sun where it is at the moment, not where the Sun was 8 minutes ago. Otherwise, the Earth and all other planets in the solar system would experience a torque and be slung into deep space within a few thousand years.
The coherent, real-time, Electric Universe
What about time? With all matter in the universe connected in real time through the electric force of gravity, time is universal. There can be no time distortion or time travel—something that common sense always told us. However, atomic clocks—our most accurate timepieces—are subject to shifts in resonant states based upon their energy. And with a real definition of energy we can see that the atomic clocks orbiting above the Earth will ‘tick’ at a different rate to those on the ground. Forget Einstein! All the engineers do for the Global Positioning Satellites (GPS) is to set their clocks on the ground to count a different number of ‘ticks’ in orbit so they keep time with those on the ground.
Electric Biology
If information about normal matter can be transferred in real-time, why not more subtle information required for coherence of complex living systems? Modern biology has no idea how living systems maintain coherent control throughout a body. Here we enter the field occupied by scientists like biologist Rupert Sheldrake, with his theory of morphic resonance; and the cellular biologist Bruce Lipton, with his ‘intelligence’ of the living cell residing in the receptors on the outer cell wall. We have a real science model to pursue the mind-body connection, the ‘subtle energy’ of living systems, memory and consciousness. The many taboo subjects for today’s micro-specialists may be opened up for investigation at last. This model argues for a coherent, interconnected, conscious universe.
The Bigger Picture
Electric Universe cosmology is an unprecedented scientific and cultural revolution. The arts, history and sciences are combined in a phenomenal and awe-inspiring panorama of the recent history of the Earth and humanity. Perhaps only the few humans who have witnessed Earth from space have felt the inspiration that such a perspective offers. On Christmas Eve 1968 the Apollo 8 spacecraft with astronauts Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and Bill Anders entered lunar orbit. At the beginning of the fourth orbit, their spacecraft was emerging from the far side of the moon when “Earthrise,” one of the most influential images in history, was taken. The image affected Anders who said later, “This is the only home we have and yet we’re busy shooting at each other, threatening nuclear war, and wearing suicide vests. It amazes me.” He gave up his religious beliefs because he could not imagine a judgemental deity up there “wondering whether Billy was a good boy yesterday?”
This comment by Anders emphasises that we must first understand ourselves before we can understand the universe. And for our long-term survival we must understand the origin of our existential fear, which is at the heart of our irrational, destructive behaviour toward each other and the planet. A desperate need for order seems to drive modern big bang cosmology, which has returned to Pythagorean and Platonic mysticism and has nothing useful or even sensible to offer us. It seems significant that real science,28 the search for truth, was disrupted in the catharsis following the end of the insane First World War. The world was keen to escape the reality of the re-enacted apocalypse. Lately, I have discovered that the great European scientists of the 19th century, who were experimenting with electricity and magnetism, were close to a real, coherent understanding of gravity, magnetism, light, the atom, and the Electric Universe. Sadly, we have wasted a century or more.
The big bang has its origin in the creation myth of the splitting open of a primordial ‘cosmic egg.’ Historically we have the unexplained exploits of the planetary gods brandishing their apocalyptic weapon—the ‘thunderbolt of the gods.’ Why is there global accord about the planetary gods? Venus is always female; the beautiful princess with long flowing hair; or her alter-ego, the terrible Medusa monster with venomous serpentine hair. Mars is always male; the archetypal warrior hero who saves the beautiful princess from chaos monsters. He is scarred in battle. North American Indians called Mars “Scarface.” How can these dramatic stories about tiny moving specks of light in the night sky have come about? Such foundational questions never occur to today’s specialists who have been disciplined to believe in Newton’s clockwork solar system where ‘bad things’ only happened in an unfathomably remote past.
Paradoxically, religions are the most divisive feature of human existence. They provide no scientific answers but rather pose fundamental questions facing humanity. What is the origin of the Chicken Little fascination with the end of days; of doomsday? In my lifetime I have seen fear of a nuclear winter; of comet impact; of an ice age; and now it is global warming and a pandemic. What was the origin of the divisive human obsession with heavenly gods; the old warring planetary gods and their apocalyptic weapon—the thunderbolt? I was in high school when I found an answer. In 1950 the textbook publisher, The Macmillan Company, released a best-selling book by Immanuel Velikovsky titled Worlds in Collision. It inspired me with a well-documented, multi-disciplinary forensic investigation of global references to planetary gods and their interactions. The archetypes and exploits of each planet are the same the world over. They must have been witnessed as the Earth rotated beneath some celestial spectacle. But it seems we never learn from past mistakes. Worlds in Collision suffered the modern equivalent of a medieval book burning at the hands of astronomer priests who threatened a boycott of Macmillan’s textbook business. The company was forced to transfer the rights of their best-seller to Doubleday.
- image: Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979)
caption with image: Immanuel Velikovsky is famous for the controversy that came to be known as The Velikovsky Affair. This was an embarrassing moment for mainstream scientists, who showed themselves to be emotional partisans of a cult rather than the rational objective thinkers they’d been pretending to be. In fact, their behaviour was so unbecoming, the populist scientist of the time, Carl Sagan issued an apology, expressing his regret that scientists and academics had lost all rational comportment and dignity in their vicious attacks against Velikovsky. His book Worlds in Collision is an incredible multi-disciplinary study that considers a mountain of evidence indicating large-scale planetary displacement in our solar system with catastrophic consequences on Earth during historical memory and recorded in Biblical tales and myths around the world.
The noted astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle wrote:
"The book [Worlds in Collision] caused a sensation both with the public and among astronomers, the latter becoming stirred to near-violent displays of outrage. Such eminent figures as Harlow Shapley were heavily involved. It could be said that Shapley became angry even to the point of incoherence."
~Sir Fred Hoyle
Of Velikovsky, Hoyle wrote:
"He believed in the primacy of documentary evidence, whereas we believed in the primacy of mathematical rules, rules that enabled us to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, where and when the next total eclipse of the Sun was going to occur."
~Sir Fred Hoyle
This belief in a primordial Newtonian clockwork solar system and dismissal of contrary evidence is unscientific but characteristic of mathematical theorists. It allows unrestrained retro-calculation. But the laws of physics are man-made and subject to revision, particularly in the case of the force of gravity, which in this 21st century still has no physical explanation. The law gives a purely mathematical description of planetary orbits. Yet the unbalanced force of gravity has no feedback mechanism to maintain order for 3 or more orbiting bodies. This disturbing fact is ignored.29 Nonetheless, Hoyle was moved to ask:
"Could it be that Velikovsky had revealed, admittedly in a form that was scientifically unacceptable, a situation that astronomers are under a cultural imperative to hide? Could it be that, somewhere in the shadows, there is a past history that it is inadmissible to discuss?"30
~Sir Fred Hoyle
Velikovsky “in a form that was scientifically unacceptable” had confirmed Hoyle’s suspicion.31 He was a polymath and psychoanalyst—a broadly educated classical scientist, unlike specialists of the last century. In his view, mankind demonstrates a clear desire not to know that the solar system has a recent catastrophic history. All catastrophes are pushed into an unimaginably remote past, so the uniformitarian history of the Earth reads like a reassuring “Once upon a time, long, long ago…” bedtime story. Meanwhile we have developed weapons capable of re-enacting the destruction from heaven wrought by the interplanetary thunderbolts and placed those weapons in the hands of amnesiacs, unaware of the post traumatic subconscious urge to repeat the past. Velikovsky warned that until we remember our past, we cannot heal from it and are doomed to repeat our irrational patterns of unsustainable behaviour toward each other and the planet. We are our own worst enemy.
Clearly, Velikovsky’s over-dramatic book title Worlds in Collision was misleading because what he, and the mytho-historians who followed him,32 described were close electrical encounters of the Earth with other planets. Of course, we now read that the Moon was formed in far off times by collision of the early Earth with a Mars-sized body. Such stories are a result of the empty toolbox of astrophysicists. They only have explosions and collisions to work with. There is no specialist on Earth who understands cosmology as the “Queen of the sciences” for the simple reason that it requires coherence across all disciplinary boundaries. No university on Earth, with their focus on micro-specialisation, provides that. Natural philosophy has been pronounced dead by Stephen Hawking. However, “It is the inductive science of philosophy that teaches the ‘hard’ scientist how to be scientific.”33 And as Jacques Barzun wrote, “If he retreats from the indulgence of self-annihilation, man the philosopher will find ancestral voices to guide him.”34
At university in the early 60s, I think I was the only science undergraduate haunting the Anthropology section of the university library. Reading the creation myths of many diverse cultures convinced me that Velikovsky had made a case that must be answered. The Electric Universe cosmology is the result of a lifetime’s independent research shared with similarly inspired scholars from the arts, engineering and sciences. Because it includes human evidence of the sky stretching back into prehistory, it provides a surprisingly detailed big picture of the recent history of the solar system and our experiences of a series of dramatic interplanetary events. As a result, the Electric Universe is the only coherent cosmology that has correctly predicted and explained discoveries in the space age. And in 2019 a multi-million-dollar independent experiment to audit the electrical nature of stars was successfully completed.35 It will revolutionize the sciences. The Electric Universe is a scientific and cultural paradigm leap that must happen if we are to have a future on this blue jewel of a planet.
[1]Ralph Juergens, Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism, Pensée, Fall 1972, p. 9.
[2]Phys.org. Iron is everywhere in Earth’s vicinity.
[3]In a personal letter to Professor Solovine, dated 28 March 1949: “You can imagine that I look back on my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.” Quoted in B. Hoffman, Albert Einstein – Creator and Rebel (N.Y.: Viking Press, 1972).
[4]Marco M. Capria, Review of André K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics Apeiron, Montreal, 1999, pp. 285.
[5]André K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics, pp. 51-8, Apeiron, Montreal.
[6]A. K. T. Assis, Deriving gravitation from electromagnetism, Can. J. Phys. 70, pp. 330-40 (1992).
[7]W. Thornhill, Electric Comets & Asteroids.
[8]B. J.R. Davidsson et al. Nucleus properties of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 estimated from non-gravitational force modelling, Icarus 187 (2007) p. 312. The water production rate falls off “around 30 days pre-perihelion, and continuing for the next 50 days,” which is not expected in the icy comet model but may match the electrical model since it coincides with the minimum radial acceleration of the negative comet with respect to the positive Sun.
[9]Halton Arp, The Observational Impetus for Le Sage Gravity Pushing gravity: New perspective on Le Sage’s theory of gravity,(Apeiron, Montreal (2002).
[10]G. Burbidge et al. The Discovery of a High Redshift X-ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319.
[11]Edwin Hubble,“…on the basis of the evidence now available, a choice seems to be presented, as once before in the days of Copernicus, between a small, finite universe, and a sensibly infinite universe plus a new principle of nature. And, as before, the choice may be determined by the attribute of simplicity.” The Problem of the Expanding Universe. Science 1942; 95: pp. 212-215.
[12]Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Apeiron, Montreal (1998).
[13]See Eric J. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, p. 244 ff., Simon & Schuster, 1991.
[14]
https://www.plasma-universe.com/galaxy-formation/, Electrical Birthing of Stars.
[15]ESA Report, 2 October 2009.
[16]Phys.org, “The water in Saturn’s rings and satellites is like that on Earth,” 3/12/2018.
[17]Phys.org, “The Origin of Binary Stars.” 21/8/2017.
[18]G. T. Marklund, Plasma Convection in Force-Free Magnetic Fields as a Mechanism for Chemical Separation in Cosmical Plasmas, Nature 1979; 277: 370-1.
[19]A. M. Stutz1 and A. Gould, Slingshot mechanism in Orion: Kinematic evidence for ejection of protostars by filaments, Astronomy & Astrophysics 590, A2 (2016).
[20]G. L. Verschuur, Neutral Hydrogen Filaments at High Galactic Latitudes, Astrophys Space Sci 1991; 185: 305-32.
[21]T. Holden, Do dinosaurs pose a gravity problem?
[22]Jan Lamprecht, Hollow Planets: A Feasibility Study of Possible Hollow Worlds, (2013).
[23]Phys.org, March 20, 2020, Initial findings of artificial impact on asteroid Ryugu.
[24]See
https://etherealmatters.org/sam
[25]K. R. Healy, A. L. Peratt, Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, And Experiment, Astrophysics and Space Science 227: 229-253, 1995.
[26]G. B. Jeffery, W. Perrett, Sidelights on Relativity. Einstein A. Ether and the Theory of Relativity: An Address Delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.
[27]Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Apeiron 1998: p. 239.
[28]Bruce G. Charlton, Not Even Trying… The Corruption of Real Science, University of Buckingham Press.“..modern research is incoherent, and therefore whatever masquerades as checking and testing is not merely irrelevant but actively misleading – merely an excuse for unendingly funding permanently inconclusive research.”
[29]Sussman GJ, Wisdom J. Chaotic Evolution of the Solar System,Science 257(3): 56-62, 1992. “the evolution of the solar system as a whole is chaotic, with a time scale of exponential divergence of about 4 million years.”
[30]Fred Hoyle, Home is where the wind blows, pp. 285-6.
[31]Immanuel Velikovsky, Mankind in Amnesia,
[32]David Talbott, Thunderbolts of the Gods, (2002), Dwardu Cardona, Newborn Star, (2016), Ev Cochrane, Fossil Gods and Forgotten Worlds, (2010).
[33]David Harriman, The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics, 2010, p. 243.
[34]Jacques Barzun, Science: the glorious entertainment, p. 306.
[35]See safireproject.com
© Wallace Thornhill 2020
This is another attempt at creating a monthly Wal Thornhill Electric Universe Reader. The purpose is to create a syllabus for continuous study of Electric Universe publications throughout the year. The idea is to collect all April publications in one thread, and so on for each month. There are many advantages to approaching the voluminous papers in this way.
I begin this month with an article Wal Thornhill published in April of 2020 in "The Secular Heretic":
[b]https://web.archive.org/web/20200505055109/thesecularheretic.com/the-electric-universe-heresy/[/b]
The Secular Heretic -- Astronomy, Chemistry, Heresies, Metaphysics, Science
[b]The Electric Universe Heresy[/b]
written by Wallace Thornhill
April 20, 2020
[list]In this groundbreaking paper Wal Thornhill introduces a new Theory of Everything: The Electric Universe. Set aside everything you think you know about all things great and small because the ideas presented here overturn it all. Was there a big bang? Not likely. Einstein’s Relativity? Doesn’t hold up. Is the Sun a thermonuclear fusion reactor which will eventually run out of fuel and burn out? Nope. Are there black holes? No such thing. What about dark matter and dark energy? Forget about that nonsense and start learning about the science of the 21st century. “. . .the Electric Universe is the only coherent cosmology that has correctly predicted and explained discoveries in the space age.” For example, Thornhill specifically predicted the unexpected results of the Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1 in October 2001, almost four years before the event. He was alone in successfully predicting what would be seen beneath the clouds of Saturn’s moon Titan.[/list]
[list]image: Globes exchanging electrical discharge in an Electric Universe[/list]
[b]The Electric Sun Experiment[/b]
In 1972 an article in an obscure journal caught my eye. It was written by engineer Ralph Juergens from Flagstaff, Arizona. He wrote:
"I can find no way to state this diplomatically, so let me be blunt: 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."1
~Ralph Juergens
By attending to all of the most obvious features seen on the Sun, the photospheric granules, spicules, sunspots, chromosphere and corona, Juergens produced a detailed engineer’s model of an electrically powered Sun that seemed to account logically and simply for all the phenomena. The fixed belief that stars are isolated bodies in space, demanding internal thermonuclear energy to power them for billions of years, has resulted in untold waste in astrophysics and nuclear energy research.
In 2012 experienced Canadian engineer Montgomery Childs proposed an experiment to be done independently to test Juergens’ electric sun model. He said he could “find no disparities” in the model, which is unusual. Looking at the night sky, the process had to be simple and well-controlled. Otherwise the sky would look like the fourth of July. So was born the SAFIRE (Stellar Atmospheric Function in Regulation Experiment) Project. As the name might suggest, it was designed to mimic the critical features of the Sun and its plasma environment in a continuous and easily controlled way. Meanwhile the thermonuclear Sun model remains theoretical and unpredictive. Attempts to produce fusion energy like the Sun on Earth have got nowhere. The field of fusion energy is chronically unstable and unproductive.
In 2019 at the Electric Universe UK conference at Bath University, the SAFIRE experiment was declared a success. The SAFIRE team did a number of high-energy experiments, which met predictions such as transmutation of elements and extremely high energy levels, but also showed the potential for remediation of radioactive waste. The Sun’s energy is produced right before our eyes by electrical energy from the galaxy producing benign nuclear energy in the Sun’s atmosphere. Sunspots are dark simply because the body of the Sun is cooler beneath the photosphere! And as uncommon sense suggests, all bright stars continually produce heavy elements, albeit in their atmospheres! So the recent discovery by ESA’s Cluster mission of highly ionised iron atoms in the solar wind is not a surprise.2
[list]image: SAFIRE
caption with image: The SAFIRE sun confirms the Electric Universe hypothesis that the Sun (and all stars for that matter) are not thermonuclear phenomena after all, but in fact fundamentally electrical in nature. Based on cutting-edge research, the SAFIRE team is developing a new, clean energy, nuclear-plasma reactor, which will not only be able to produce clean energy, but is expected to be able to clean up nuclear waste.
[/list]
[b]The Electric Universe[/b]
The Electric Universe returns to the highly successful classical method of doing science in the 19th century. It adheres to the principles of physics and aims at simplification, in stark distinction to the explosion of imaginary particles and unexplained forces of the last century. For example, the Electric Universe has a single force operating in the universe—the electric force. Magnetism, gravity and the nuclear force are various effects produced by charged, orbitally structured protons and electrons in response to an applied electric force. All matter in the universe is connected by the electric force. And since the electric force can be either attractive or repulsive, there is a balance possible between the force of cohesion and the force that keeps things apart. The universe is in balance. The electric force is instantaneous, which is essential for coherence and stability of orbital systems on all scales. Time is universal. This real-time connectedness of the Electric Universe allows us to understand ourselves and our place in the universe more clearly. We are not isolated and alone in this ‘conscious’ universe of unknown age and extent. We are all subtly connected to each other, the Earth and the Electric Universe.
Electric universe cosmology is both simple and elegant. It could begin to be taught in primary school. Its history is inspiring. In the mid-1800s to early-1900s Kristian Birkeland was performing his electrical ‘little Earth,’ or Terrella, experiments in Norway, and Gauss and Weber were discovering the electrical structure of matter. Weber predicted the orbital structure of the atom, based on his generalized electrodynamic law, about 40 years before J. J. Thomson discovered the electron and produced his ‘plum pudding’ model of the atom. Later, Ernest Rutherford discovered its heavy nucleus and Neils Bohr produced an orbital structure. More than a century later, physicists have still not learned the lesson and have a structureless ‘plum pudding’ model of subatomic particles, filled with fanciful quarks that “wink in to and out of existence!”
Today, physicists labour under misconceptions about the nature of matter and the concepts of space and time; the relationship between matter, mass and gravity; the real nature of stars and galaxies; and the size and age of the universe. So, when astrophysicists turn to particle physicists to solve their intractable problems and particle physicists use it as an excuse for squandering billions of dollars on nonsensical particle experiments, few will admit that both fields are in crisis. It truly is the blind leading the blind. Their mysteries are of their own making.
How has this situation arisen? In the 20th century, technologists perfected wireless communication and computers and got man into space while fundamental science dug itself deeper into its own black hole of complication, illogicality and pseudo-science. The principal cause has been the usurping, since Einstein, of natural philosophy and physics by mathematicians. Einstein, perhaps to his credit, remained skeptical about his contribution.3 Meanwhile, it served the egos of his followers to consecrate his work and treat dissent as blasphemy. Future historians of science will judge the last century harshly. School children in future will know the answer to the basic question, What is the principal force of the universe? as certainly as they presently know the answer to the question, What is the shape of the Earth? They will tell you that gravity itself is a type of electric force. It is an Electric Universe.
[b]Big Nothing Cosmology[/b]
Presently, the big bang picture is illogical, incoherent and hope-less. We are led to believe that we are isolated by the immensity of time and space on an atom of rock, circling a dust mote of a star. We got here by a miraculous creation ex nihilo event, followed by a random process of explosions, collisions and accretions (and this in an expanding universe). We are told that life itself is the result of a meaningless sequence of random events. None of these processes are understood. This hasn’t stopped the mathematicians. Until there is a simple, testable theory that can explain the natural spiral shape of galaxies without invoking unseen matter or strange forces, scientists cannot claim they understand gravity or that gravity rules the universe.
The twin pillars of big bang cosmology—Einstein’s theories of relativity and quantum theory—are incompatible, so we cannot use them as a foundation for a real model of the universe. We must discard so-called modern physics and return to the classical physics of a century ago. This, perhaps, is the greatest hurdle—to discard our training and prejudices and approach the problem with a beginner’s mind.
Clearly, to provide a sensible alternative theory we must address the problems with our present understanding of both extremes of scale, the subatomic and galactic. This paper outlines the conceptual possibilities as simply as possible under a number of headings in an attempt to correct our seriously distorted view of the universe.
[b]The Origin of Mass in the Electrical Structure of Matter[/b]
The something absolutely fundamental that is missing in our explanation of gravity and quantum behavior is the electrical structure of matter. Here we are not talking about atoms. We must go down one more level and propose that all subatomic particles, particularly the electron and proton, are orbital systems (like atoms) of smaller electric charges of opposite polarity that sum to the charge on that particle. This orbital model was an indispensible insight of the great German physicist Wilhelm Weber in the middle of the 19th century.
Neutrons do not exist as stable particles in atoms (see later). They are a transient coupling of an electron and proton formed to avoid the powerful electric forces in atomic nuclei and active galactic nuclei—an essential requirement in building heavy elements and giving birth to quasars and new companion galaxies from active galactic nuclei.
The electron is not a fundamental, point-like particle. It must have structure to have angular momentum and a preferred magnetic orientation, known as ‘spin.’ There must be orbital motion of charges within the electron to generate its magnetic dipole. The transfer of electrical energy between the charges in their orbits must be resonant and instantaneous to conserve energy and for the electron to be a stable particle. Therefore Wilhelm Weber’s presently dismissed electrodynamic law in fact applies. The same argument applies to its positively charged partner, the proton. This sub-subatomic model satisfies Einstein’s view that there must be some lower level of structure in matter to cause resonant quantum effects. Moreover Weber’s law, being instantaneous, removes the ‘spookiness’ of the connection seen between widely separated (so-called ‘entangled’) particles that Einstein complained about.
We must have a workable concept of the structure of matter that satisfies the observation that inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent. First, gravity must operate at the subatomic level because Newton’s law refers to mass and not composition or charge on matter. The feather and the bowling ball fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum. Second, Isaac Newton wisely recognized the significance of his simple but most important spinning bucket of water experiment, where the water rises up the wall of the bucket against Earth’s gravity. It has been described as one of the simplest and most important of all experiments performed by Newton. Simply stated in a review4 of the seminal work of Prof. André Assis’ Relational Mechanics5:
"Take a bucket filled with water, and set it into rotation (for instance, by attaching it by a rope to the ceiling, twisting the rope and then letting it unwind); you shall see that as soon as the motion of the bucket is communicated to the water, the surface of the liquid will become curved (as a paraboloid), and curved it will remain if the bucket is stopped all of a sudden. This means that the water ‘feels’ the rotation independently of its relative motion with respect to the bucket. So this rotation must be regarded, in Newton’s opinion, [i][u]as relative to absolute space[/u][/i]" [i.e. [i][u]as absolute motion[/u][/i], emphasis added].
~Marco M. Capria
Newton wrote:
"The effects which distinguish absolute from relative motion are, the forces of receding from the axis of rotation. For there are no such forces in a circular motion purely relative. . ."
~Isaac Newton. “Scholium.” Principia.
This should have been sufficient to discard Einstein’s relativity! His principle of the equivalence of his ‘inertial frames of reference’ has the effect of making arbitrary moving observers the centres of their own individual universes, which is nonsense. To do physics requires absolute standards of measurement, not relative standards. If further argument were necessary, Einstein went on in his general relativity to discard the indispensable force of gravity! (more on this below).
[list]image: Sir Isaac Newton
caption with image: It is critical to note that Newton was very careful to warn theorists away from mistaking what we call “time, space, place, and motion” with their true existence because physics concerns itself exclusively with “measured quantities.” Specifically he says: “those violate the accuracy of language, which ought to be kept precise, who interpret these words [time, space, place, and motion] for the measured quantities. Nor do those less defile the purity of mathematical and philosophical truths, who confound real quantities
image: Albert Einstein with chalk board
caption continued: with their relations [analogies] and sensible measures.” In other words, we do not know true realities or even true measures because all we have at hand are heuristics, and we must therefore be careful not to confuse any clock with real time, or any measure with real space, or shape with real place—all issues he discusses in his definitions (and first principles) at the start of the Principia. Einstein falls directly into this fallacy when he mistakes the measures of relative time for actual time (which Newton called “duration”). Newton’s duration allows for simultaneity, whereas Einstein’s distorted spacetime scrambles reality and makes simultaneous action impossible—an argument ad absurdum that violates reality. Simultaneity is essential for universal coherence. [/list]
[b]Magnetism and Gravity [/b]
Coulomb’s electrical force law is similar to Newton’s force law of gravity, which provides a fundamental clue. Gravitational mass plays the same role as electrical charges but it is independent of the charge on a subatomic particle. In 1992 Prof. André Assis of the State University of Campinas in Brazil published a paper showing how the works of the great experimentalists of the 19th century, particularly Wilhelm Weber, could explain magnetism, gravity and their magnitudes in terms of charge neutral electric dipole interactions!
"In conclusion we may say that in this model of generalized Weber electrodynamics we obtain: electrostatics as a zeroth-order effect, magnetism and Faraday’s induction as a 2nd-order effect, gravitation as a 4th-order effect, and inertia and precession of the perihelion as a 6th-order electromagnetic effect."6
~Prof. André Assis
Assis noted that the model could also apply to the electron and proton since they exhibit inertia. The orders of magnitude of the forces match observations, which is a remarkable fact.
The noted physicist, Fritz London, who had developed the theory of molecular bonding by the atomic electric dipole force, contemplated an electric dipole model of gravity. Like gravity as we experience it, the London force is only attractive because the electric dipoles can rotate into alignment like bar magnets on a glass tabletop. This induced-dipole to induced-dipole electrical attraction is the force that permits matter to condense into liquids and solids.
Similarly, on the subatomic scale, the Electric Universe model of structured electrons and protons has the gravitational force due to the distortion of the orbits of sub-subatomic charges orbiting within the electrons and protons in atoms to form subatomic electric dipoles, which, being free to rotate, line up radially. The orbital distortion (see diagram below) is then due simply to the offset of the heavy nucleus inside each atom of a body toward the center of mass of that body. Gravity is produced by the sum of the radially aligned subatomic electric dipoles formed by all the electrons and protons within a celestial body. The gravitational force depends only on mass because it is a subatomic phenomenon. And as a subatomic phenomenon, gravity cannot be shielded electrically. So, the inertia of a body is due to its gravitational interaction with all other bodies in the universe. The inertial mass is equivalent to the gravitational mass.
[list]image: Gravity in the Electric Universe: https://web.archive.org/web/20200919115916im_/https://thesecularheretic.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/What-Causes-Gravity.png[/list]
Newton’s universal constant of gravitation, or G, is neither universal nor constant. It is a dependent variable because it has a dimension including mass. G also depends upon stored electrical energy, or charge distribution, within the gravitationally induced spherical electret (or surface charge) of a celestial body. Therefore, we cannot deduce the density or composition of a celestial object by measuring its gravity! For example, comet nuclei are observed to be rocky with sharply featured geology and no surface ice—dismissing the dirty snowball model.
Comets are “Rosetta Stones” for the Electric Sun model.7 Changes in their surface charge gives rise to rotational disturbances and so-called “non-gravitational” acceleration. Moving remotely in the electric field of the Sun, comets have plenty of time to charge more negatively. As they accelerate in the inner solar system toward the Sun the rapidly increasing electric stress on the comet causes a plasma discharge—including a huge plasma sheath (coma) and well-collimated cold cathode discharge jets. Charge exchange with the solar wind changes the mass and moment of inertia of the comet causing unexplained gravitational accelerations and rotational anomalies. Mineral particles and atoms, including oxygen, are sputtered electrically from the surface. There is no “non-gravitational” force on the nucleus. The oxygen atoms combine with protons from the solar wind to give the misleading OH signatures attributed conventionally to water ice from the comet nucleus.8
[list]image: Wilhelm Weber (1804-1891)
caption with image: Wilhelm Eduard Weber worked with Carl Friedrich Gauss as his assistant and collaborator. With Weber’s help, Gauss invented accurate measuring of the intensity of magnetic fields; and to this day, we measure the strength of magnets in units of gauss. In 1870 Weber—before J. J. Thomson’s 1897 conception of the electron—posited dipolar (positive and negative) electrical particles attracting and repelling each other both in the direction of their flow and—if we picture flows along two wires—laterally or ‘transversely’ between the wires. In contrast, the predominant view today is that the particles are influenced by the field (or wiring, as it is usually understood) and the wiring influences the particles, but the particles do not influence each other. It is arguable that the electron radius calculation and the electron-proton mass ratio were implicit in his work.
[/list]
[b]Dipole Gravity and Cosmology[/b]
Notice that the same electro-gravitational pole faces outward in all celestial bodies. So they repel one another gravitationally as if they were particles of the same charge polarity. The repulsive gravitational force on the Earth from the rest of the universe is sufficient to accelerate the 6 x 1024 kilogram Earth by 60 km/sec every 6 months as it circles the repulsing Sun. Gravity is a real force.
[list]image: Repulsive gravitation and the Electric Universe: https://web.archive.org/web/20200919115915im_/https://thesecularheretic.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EU-Gravity2.png
[/list]
Of course repulsive dipole gravity forbids the formation of galaxies, stars and planets by gravitational accretion, mergers and collisions. It ensures balance and order in the non-expanding Electric Universe. The father of plasma cosmology, Hannes Alfvén, considered gravitational systems “the ashes of former electromagnetic systems.” That is why gravity applies only inside the Sun’s plasma heliosheath, or ‘heliosphere,’ which shields us from the local galactic electromagnetic environment. It does not work for electromagnetic galaxies.
[list]image: Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)
caption with image: Hannes Olof Gosta Alfvén was a Swedish electrical engineer and physicist who provided many of the fundamental theories of plasma cosmology and won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics. Alfvén contributed our knowledge and understanding of the aurorae, the Van Allen radiation belts, the effects of cosmic magnetism on the Earth, and the behaviour of plasma in the Milky Way.[/list]
[b]Intrinsic Redshift and the Real Universe[/b]
The observational evidence for repulsive gravity was assembled by the ‘modern day Galileo,’ Dr. Halton Arp.9 The notion of ‘pushing gravity’ has been around since Isaac Newton but has struggled to find a sensible physical explanation—until now, when gravity is finally understood. Arp showed the visible universe is much smaller than cosmologists think because he found physical associations between high-redshift quasars and low-redshift active galaxies. In one fine example, the quasar is in front of the galaxy!10 So redshift is largely an intrinsic effect in the young quasar rather than a Doppler effect from recession at high velocity. Edwin Hubble was right to believe the expanding universe hypothesis implausible.11 The “new principle of nature” he needed was a full understanding of redshift. Quasars are not isolated objects near the edge of the visible universe. They are ejected from the cores of active galaxies. Their redshift decreases and brightness increases with distance from their parent. High redshift and faintness are a measure of the youthfulness of a quasar and not its distance from us.12 What we see is Hubble’s “small, finite universe.” The big bang never happened!
Significantly, Arp also found the redshifted light from quasars is quantised—it decreases with distance from its parent in discrete steps, which proves the effect is intrinsic to the matter in the quasar. The nonsense of quantum phenomena only occurring at the atomic scale is apparent here.
The Electric Universe, following plasma cosmologists, has quasars born in pairs as oppositely directed beams of neutrons, escaping in ultra-high-speed bursts along the axis of the active galaxy’s toroidal dense plasmoid nucleus.13 As the neutrons decay into electrons and protons they begin to slow in the galactic magnetic field and form condensed matter with gravitational polarization and mass. As Arp observed, the quasar increases in mass and slows down. The light electrons are slowed more than the protons by the parent galaxy’s magnetic field, so the quasar begins life electron-deficient. The electrical polarization within the quasar steadily increases with the arrival of electrons from the galactic jet ‘umbilical cord’ and their recombination with protons to form hydrogen atoms. As the energy state (electrical polarization) of the electrons and protons in the quasar atoms increases, the energies (masses) of one or the other will reach a quantum threshold (like an atom) and jump to a new resonant state. This will cause the emitted spectrum of the atoms to increase in frequency—that is, the redshift to decrease—in a quantum transition.
[list]image: Quasars in the Electric Universe: https://web.archive.org/web/20200517045411im_/https://thesecularheretic.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EU-Quasars.jpg
[/list]
Based on this model, the surprising, alleged ‘accelerating expansion of the universe’ concept is invalid. Supernovae Type 1a cannot be used as ‘standard candles’ because their intrinsic luminosity is dependent upon the power available from their host galaxy; the higher the redshift, the lower the power and luminosity, which has given rise to the erroneous theory of an accelerating expansion of the universe and the introduction of another ad hoc ‘fix’—mysterious ‘dark energy.’ The visible universe is not expanding. Arp found it to be relatively static and balanced, which is why he reasoned that gravity is cosmically a repulsive force.
[list]image: Conventional redshift diagram
caption with image: The above diagram shows the conventional view of redshift as a measure of distance from the observer. It explains that as the universe expands (a result of the Big Bang at the bottom of the diagram), light is stretched. This stretch is called redshift. The principle is that red is the longest visible wavelength of light. So any colour of light that moves toward red on the spectrum of colour would be considered redshifted even if it is not truly red. The opposite of redshift is blueshift. The Electric Universe contends that class of supernovae used as ‘standard candles’ to measure the expansion of the universe is fundamentally flawed. As Dr. Halton Arp discovered, redshift is an indication of a quasar’s age and its relationship to its parent galaxy. It follows that the universe is not expanding after all and that there was no Big Bang. It is worth noting that the Big Bang hypothesis was first proposed in 1927 by the Roman Catholic priest and cosmologist Father Georges Lemaitre. He saw the event as “the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of creation” (see S. Singh. The Big Bang. London: Fourth Estate, 2004).
[/list]
[b]Electrical Formation of Celestial Bodies[/b]
Plasma cosmology shows spiral galaxies and stars are accreted and formed by powerful long-range electromagnetic forces generated by intergalactic Birkeland current filaments threading the visible universe.14 It is such filaments between galaxies that produce the observed cosmic web. Gravity cannot do that.
The Electric Universe simply states that stars and planets are formed at the same time and in the same electromagnetic accretion process, along ‘interstellar lightning bolts’ within molecular clouds. Inside the Milky Way,
"Herschel has delivered spectacular vistas of cold gas clouds lying near the plane of the Milky Way, revealing intense, unexpected activity. The dark, cool region is dotted with stellar factories, like pearls on a cosmic string."15
~ESA Report, 2 October 2009.
In addition, secondary bodies are formed by electrical expulsion from stars undergoing sudden electrical stress in which the only recourse to restore equilibrium is to expel bulk charged matter in a nova or flaring event. That is generally the origin of close orbiting ‘hot Jupiters,’ and the many satellites of more distant gas giant planets in the process of capture of a gas giant by a star. ‘Accretion disks’ are generally ‘expulsion disks.’ For example, the ephemeral icy rings of Saturn signify Saturn’s recent electrical capture by the Sun, causing an expulsion event from the planet. This gains profound importance when it was subsequently found that the water on Earth matches that found at Saturn!16 The mystery of the origin of Earth’s abundance of water may finally be solved.
The electrical birth process also explains the mystery of rotation of galaxies, stars and planets. Birkeland currents are a twisted pair of current filaments, a configuration familiar to electrical engineers for reducing electromagnetic radiation, or energy loss, from wire pairs. Accreted matter spirals in toward the axis of the twin filaments to form a single rotating body, or a pair of close-orbiting bodies. “The origin of binary stars has long been one of the central problems of astronomy.”17 It has been found that protostars and young stars are more likely to be found in binary pairs inside “elongated core structures” strung at intervals along a cosmic Birkeland current channel inside a molecular cloud. Similarly, interplanetary Birkeland current “thunderbolts” during close encounters may form smaller binaries in dusty plasma that may fuse together to form the classic dumb-bell shape, seen in many comets and asteroids. And the puzzling edge-on ‘boxy/peanut’ shaped central bulge of some spiral galaxies may be simply explained using this model. Gravitational accretion theory doesn’t work.
[list]image: Birkeland currents central to the Electric Universe
caption with image: Left to right, top to bottom in the above image: (1) the galactic network of Birkeland currents; (2) the internal directional turning of Birkeland currents displaying counter rotation of layers; (3) the north pole of Saturn displaying layers that when viewed in motion, display counter rotation (see NASA footage); (4) the north pole of Jupiter displaying similar counter rotation (see NASA footage here as well). The foremost expert on Birkeland currents is Donald Scott. For an excellent introduction to the subject, check out Scott’s model here.
[/list]
video embedded
caption with video: Watch this video to better understand Birkeland currents and our solar system.
[b]Electric Stars[/b]
Stars form “like pearls on a cosmic string” along Birkeland current channels in molecular clouds. The electromagnetic accretion process known as Marklund convection18 separates the elements by increasing ionization potential, radially from the current channel axis. The result is the heavier elements are coolest and found closest to the axis while helium and hydrogen form the outermost atmosphere. The hypothetical extreme conditions for thermonuclear energy generation in the core of a star are not fulfilled. Planets are formed in the same process. The distinction is simply due to a body’s mass and response to the ambient plasma electrical environment. The stars and planets grow in mass and are eventually left behind as their electrical umbilical cord snakes about.19
However, the stars continue to act as a focus for ‘dark mode’ current from ubiquitous lower energy Birkeland current filaments, like those traced near our solar system by their radiation at radio frequencies.20
Note that the mass of a body cannot tell us anything about its composition since mass is a property of matter, not the amount of matter. Mass is an energetic variable, according to E=mc2. The electric charge on the surface of a celestial body will contribute to the strength of the dipole field within the body and so affect its gravitational mass. For example, the existence on Earth of megafauna and megaflora in the past signals that the Earth has had a dramatic change in its electrical environment in the geologically recent past. It has been calculated on the basis of the cross-sectional strength of bone and muscle that for those giants to exist and be fleet-footed the Earth’s former gravity must have been as low as a third or a quarter of today’s strength.21 Each planet in the solar system has its own history. It is obviously not a graded system formed by primordial accretion.
Newton’s law of gravity, in the repulsive sense, applies in interplanetary space beyond their gravitationally attractive ‘spheres of influence.’ Small bodies within those spheres of influence are dominated by the attractive polarization induced by the planet. We are simply attracted like iron filings to the nearest pole—the Earth’s surface. We are intimately connected as part of the Earth.
But perhaps the most confronting idea is that dipolar gravity, with the same pole facing inwards, will tend to produce hollow shells rather than condensed bodies with dense cores. So, there are no super-dense celestial objects like white dwarfs, neutron stars or black holes. A shell model of the Earth makes simple sense of deep earthquake data.22 The standard model of the Earth’s interior requires ad hoc inner and outer cores with special properties in a complicated attempt to explain seismic anomalies. Meanwhile, it has been found that the so called ‘core-mantle boundary’ is much rougher than the Earth’s surface. This is to be expected since matter will fall upwards to the inner surface during the Earth’s formation. And there are no internal erosive forces.
Of course, hollowness would also contribute to the low mass and calculated low densities of some celestial bodies. The Sun’s mean density is only 25 percent of the Earth’s mean density (but its photosphere is not a surface, it is the top of the Sun’s ionosphere). The planet Saturn would float on water. Comets have rocky and sandy surfaces, as shown by the Deep Impact experiment and comet 67P, yet they exhibit very low densities. Significantly, researchers recently found “sand-like material under the rocky surface of asteroid Ryugu” when they fired a 2-kilogram copper ball at the asteroid at 7,200 km/h.”23
[b]The neutron and the nucleus[/b]
We observe that a neutron combines the charges from a proton and an electron in a relatively long-lived metastable resonance outside the atomic nucleus, which decays in minutes. Its decay must have a cause and seems to involve an interaction with a neutrino. But we have no evidence that neutrons exist in the nucleus. There seems no binding energy within nuclei that might provide the known needed binding energy of neutrons.
The Electric Universe model has only one force—the electric force. So neutrons cannot exist in the nuclei of atoms. Atomic nuclei are composed of protons held together by a sufficient number of electrons to occupy a geometric structure where the repulsive force between protons is offset by the proximity of the electrons between them such that the resultant force is attractive. The nucleus is made up of protons and shared electrons. It is a ‘structured atom model’ that is being investigated and shows great promise in understanding details of elemental isotopes, their stability and their chemistry.24 There is no such object as a neutron star. Plasma cosmologists have explained the detailed signal from pulsing neutron stars in terms of electrical activity in a normal stellar magnetosphere.25
[b]A model for the neutrino and the essential æther[/b]
The famous equation, E = mc2, is an example where books and encyclopaedias slip unnoticed into referring to mass ‘m’ not as a phenomenon related to matter, but as matter itself. Yet this simple equation is telling us some profound truths that are fundamental for cosmology. They are—energy, mass and the speed of light are all attributes of matter.
This realization sweeps away the fog of modern metaphysics instantly. Mass depends on the energy of the matter. And the speed of light is not a universal constant because it is affected by the material medium it is passing through. Maxwell’s æther must be reinstated. The universe has a material medium, essential for the transmission of light. The ‘perfect vacuum’ doesn’t exist. And photons don’t exist because there can be no particle with zero mass.
Fundamentally, energy is bound up in the electromagnetic structure of matter. Einstein was wrong when he spoke in 1920, “according to the special theory of relativity, both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy.”26 ‘Energy’ remains undefined in physics because of the confusion. The Electric Universe defines energy as a measure of the motion of charged matter with respect to all other charged matter in the universe. Uncharged subatomic particles are included since they are composites of equal numbers of oppositely charged sub-particles.
Without matter there can be no ‘pure energy’ at the instant of the Big Bang or ‘vacuum energy’ afterwards. Matter cannot be annihilated. The term ‘antimatter’ is misleading and incorrect. The merging of a particle and its ‘anti-particle’ must result in the release of stored electromagnetic energy and the coalescence of the combined constituent sub-particles to form a collapsed, stable particle of vanishing internal energy, or mass. Such particles are called neutrinos. The process can be reversed if a neutrino receives sufficient resonant electromagnetic energy that it re-forms a particle and its mirror image particle. On this topic Dr. Halton Arp writes:
"there can be no such thing as ‘new’ matter. So when we speak of creation of matter we do not mean matter coming into our universe from somewhere else (there is nowhere else) or from nothing. We must mean the transformation of previously existing mass-energy."27
~Halton Arp
Empty space is not empty. It is an æther of neutrinos. They are the sources of matter in the universe, awaiting the burst of gamma rays to open them to form the stuff of atoms. Being composed of orbiting charged sub-particles, neutrinos form the neutral dielectric ‘æther’ required by Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism. It is the medium through which the electric force is transferred directly via chains of electric dipoles.
[b]The real nature of light[/b]
What is the real nature of light? It cannot be both a wave and a particle. Einstein’s special theory of relativity discarded the medium (æther) required by James Clerk Maxwell for the transmission of light. Einstein was confirmed in his view by the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, that experiment showed a residual, which can be explained by the æther being ‘dragged’ along by the rotating Earth. This was later confirmed by far more rigorous repeats of the experiment by Dayton Miller. The Dayton Miller story makes interesting reading. If it weren’t for the extraordinary power of self-delusion, commonsense would tell us that a wave can’t exist in nothing. Maxwell was right, light is a transverse electromagnetic wave moving through a dielectric medium, the æther.
The universe is teeming with neutrinos. And since neutrinos are resonant orbiting systems of charge, like all matter, they will respond to the electric force by distorting to form an electric dipole aligned with the electric field. The speed of light in a vacuum may be seen as related to the moment of inertia of the neutrino in response to an alternating transverse electric force.
What about the bending of starlight by the Sun, which discovery raised Einstein to megastar status? The residual found in the Michelson-Morley experiments shows that the Earth and all ponderable bodies ‘drag’ an æther ‘atmosphere’ along with them. The bending of starlight near the Sun is the effect expected of an extensive neutrino atmosphere held to the Sun by gravity. Neutrinos do, after all, have some mass. Light will be slowed in the denser medium—causing normal refraction or bending of light.
[list]image: Michelson-Morley experiment deemed faulty by the Electric Universe
caption with image: The Michelson-Morley Experiment is conventionally taken to prove the non-existence of the aether. Essentially the idea was to use the interference properties of light waves to produce a dimming and brightening of observed light. If one simply merges two rays of light travelling at the same speed, their wave patterns (imagine undulating waves) will be synchronized (i.e. their crests and troughs will align). This alignment will result in a brighter light. If, however, one ray in this scenario falls behind the other such that one’s trough converges with the other’s crest, an observable dimming will take place. The assumption of the Michelson-Morley Experiment was that the aether is a flowing current of some sort. If it flows, goes the reasoning, then it must carry along waves of light slower upstream, faster downstream and at another rate cross-stream. Since light speeds could only be measured on a two-way trip, Michelson set up an experiment with a semi-reflective mirror that would allow half the light of each of two rays to pass through at right angles to each other with the whole apparatus set upon a rotating table. See here for an animated view of the experiment. When turning the table, one should observe a dimming and brightening of the light due to the interference of the aether flow. Although this experiment was performed under various conditions, no such fluctuation was observed.[/list]
[b]The light-speed non-barrier[/b]
We must give up the notion that the speed of light is a real speed barrier for the transfer of information. Light speed may seem fast on our puny scale, but on a cosmic scale it is glacial. Imposing such a speed limit renders the universe totally incoherent. Weber’s electrodynamics, which encompasses gravity, is instantaneous. There would be no stable atoms, planetary systems or galaxies if this were not so.
We have direct evidence of the superluminal action of the electric force, given that gravity is a longitudinal dipolar electric force. Indeed, Newton’s celebrated equation requires that gravity act instantly on the scale of the solar system. The Earth responds to the gravitational pull of the Sun where it is at the moment, not where the Sun was 8 minutes ago. Otherwise, the Earth and all other planets in the solar system would experience a torque and be slung into deep space within a few thousand years.
[b]The coherent, real-time, Electric Universe[/b]
What about time? With all matter in the universe connected in real time through the electric force of gravity, time is universal. There can be no time distortion or time travel—something that common sense always told us. However, atomic clocks—our most accurate timepieces—are subject to shifts in resonant states based upon their energy. And with a real definition of energy we can see that the atomic clocks orbiting above the Earth will ‘tick’ at a different rate to those on the ground. Forget Einstein! All the engineers do for the Global Positioning Satellites (GPS) is to set their clocks on the ground to count a different number of ‘ticks’ in orbit so they keep time with those on the ground.
[b]Electric Biology[/b]
If information about normal matter can be transferred in real-time, why not more subtle information required for coherence of complex living systems? Modern biology has no idea how living systems maintain coherent control throughout a body. Here we enter the field occupied by scientists like biologist Rupert Sheldrake, with his theory of morphic resonance; and the cellular biologist Bruce Lipton, with his ‘intelligence’ of the living cell residing in the receptors on the outer cell wall. We have a real science model to pursue the mind-body connection, the ‘subtle energy’ of living systems, memory and consciousness. The many taboo subjects for today’s micro-specialists may be opened up for investigation at last. This model argues for a coherent, interconnected, conscious universe.
[b]The Bigger Picture[/b]
Electric Universe cosmology is an unprecedented scientific and cultural revolution. The arts, history and sciences are combined in a phenomenal and awe-inspiring panorama of the recent history of the Earth and humanity. Perhaps only the few humans who have witnessed Earth from space have felt the inspiration that such a perspective offers. On Christmas Eve 1968 the Apollo 8 spacecraft with astronauts Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and Bill Anders entered lunar orbit. At the beginning of the fourth orbit, their spacecraft was emerging from the far side of the moon when “Earthrise,” one of the most influential images in history, was taken. The image affected Anders who said later, “This is the only home we have and yet we’re busy shooting at each other, threatening nuclear war, and wearing suicide vests. It amazes me.” He gave up his religious beliefs because he could not imagine a judgemental deity up there “wondering whether Billy was a good boy yesterday?”
This comment by Anders emphasises that we must first understand ourselves before we can understand the universe. And for our long-term survival we must understand the origin of our existential fear, which is at the heart of our irrational, destructive behaviour toward each other and the planet. A desperate need for order seems to drive modern big bang cosmology, which has returned to Pythagorean and Platonic mysticism and has nothing useful or even sensible to offer us. It seems significant that real science,28 the search for truth, was disrupted in the catharsis following the end of the insane First World War. The world was keen to escape the reality of the re-enacted apocalypse. Lately, I have discovered that the great European scientists of the 19th century, who were experimenting with electricity and magnetism, were close to a real, coherent understanding of gravity, magnetism, light, the atom, and the Electric Universe. Sadly, we have wasted a century or more.
The big bang has its origin in the creation myth of the splitting open of a primordial ‘cosmic egg.’ Historically we have the unexplained exploits of the planetary gods brandishing their apocalyptic weapon—the ‘thunderbolt of the gods.’ Why is there global accord about the planetary gods? Venus is always female; the beautiful princess with long flowing hair; or her alter-ego, the terrible Medusa monster with venomous serpentine hair. Mars is always male; the archetypal warrior hero who saves the beautiful princess from chaos monsters. He is scarred in battle. North American Indians called Mars “Scarface.” How can these dramatic stories about tiny moving specks of light in the night sky have come about? Such foundational questions never occur to today’s specialists who have been disciplined to believe in Newton’s clockwork solar system where ‘bad things’ only happened in an unfathomably remote past.
Paradoxically, religions are the most divisive feature of human existence. They provide no scientific answers but rather pose fundamental questions facing humanity. What is the origin of the Chicken Little fascination with the end of days; of doomsday? In my lifetime I have seen fear of a nuclear winter; of comet impact; of an ice age; and now it is global warming and a pandemic. What was the origin of the divisive human obsession with heavenly gods; the old warring planetary gods and their apocalyptic weapon—the thunderbolt? I was in high school when I found an answer. In 1950 the textbook publisher, The Macmillan Company, released a best-selling book by Immanuel Velikovsky titled Worlds in Collision. It inspired me with a well-documented, multi-disciplinary forensic investigation of global references to planetary gods and their interactions. The archetypes and exploits of each planet are the same the world over. They must have been witnessed as the Earth rotated beneath some celestial spectacle. But it seems we never learn from past mistakes. Worlds in Collision suffered the modern equivalent of a medieval book burning at the hands of astronomer priests who threatened a boycott of Macmillan’s textbook business. The company was forced to transfer the rights of their best-seller to Doubleday.
[list]image: Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979)
caption with image: Immanuel Velikovsky is famous for the controversy that came to be known as The Velikovsky Affair. This was an embarrassing moment for mainstream scientists, who showed themselves to be emotional partisans of a cult rather than the rational objective thinkers they’d been pretending to be. In fact, their behaviour was so unbecoming, the populist scientist of the time, Carl Sagan issued an apology, expressing his regret that scientists and academics had lost all rational comportment and dignity in their vicious attacks against Velikovsky. His book Worlds in Collision is an incredible multi-disciplinary study that considers a mountain of evidence indicating large-scale planetary displacement in our solar system with catastrophic consequences on Earth during historical memory and recorded in Biblical tales and myths around the world.[/list]
The noted astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle wrote:
"The book [Worlds in Collision] caused a sensation both with the public and among astronomers, the latter becoming stirred to near-violent displays of outrage. Such eminent figures as Harlow Shapley were heavily involved. It could be said that Shapley became angry even to the point of incoherence."
~Sir Fred Hoyle
Of Velikovsky, Hoyle wrote:
"He believed in the primacy of documentary evidence, whereas we believed in the primacy of mathematical rules, rules that enabled us to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, where and when the next total eclipse of the Sun was going to occur."
~Sir Fred Hoyle
This belief in a primordial Newtonian clockwork solar system and dismissal of contrary evidence is unscientific but characteristic of mathematical theorists. It allows unrestrained retro-calculation. But the laws of physics are man-made and subject to revision, particularly in the case of the force of gravity, which in this 21st century still has no physical explanation. The law gives a purely mathematical description of planetary orbits. Yet the unbalanced force of gravity has no feedback mechanism to maintain order for 3 or more orbiting bodies. This disturbing fact is ignored.29 Nonetheless, Hoyle was moved to ask:
"Could it be that Velikovsky had revealed, admittedly in a form that was scientifically unacceptable, a situation that astronomers are under a cultural imperative to hide? Could it be that, somewhere in the shadows, there is a past history that it is inadmissible to discuss?"30
~Sir Fred Hoyle
Velikovsky “in a form that was scientifically unacceptable” had confirmed Hoyle’s suspicion.31 He was a polymath and psychoanalyst—a broadly educated classical scientist, unlike specialists of the last century. In his view, mankind demonstrates a clear desire not to know that the solar system has a recent catastrophic history. All catastrophes are pushed into an unimaginably remote past, so the uniformitarian history of the Earth reads like a reassuring “Once upon a time, long, long ago…” bedtime story. Meanwhile we have developed weapons capable of re-enacting the destruction from heaven wrought by the interplanetary thunderbolts and placed those weapons in the hands of amnesiacs, unaware of the post traumatic subconscious urge to repeat the past. Velikovsky warned that until we remember our past, we cannot heal from it and are doomed to repeat our irrational patterns of unsustainable behaviour toward each other and the planet. We are our own worst enemy.
Clearly, Velikovsky’s over-dramatic book title Worlds in Collision was misleading because what he, and the mytho-historians who followed him,32 described were close electrical encounters of the Earth with other planets. Of course, we now read that the Moon was formed in far off times by collision of the early Earth with a Mars-sized body. Such stories are a result of the empty toolbox of astrophysicists. They only have explosions and collisions to work with. There is no specialist on Earth who understands cosmology as the “Queen of the sciences” for the simple reason that it requires coherence across all disciplinary boundaries. No university on Earth, with their focus on micro-specialisation, provides that. Natural philosophy has been pronounced dead by Stephen Hawking. However, “It is the inductive science of philosophy that teaches the ‘hard’ scientist how to be scientific.”33 And as Jacques Barzun wrote, “If he retreats from the indulgence of self-annihilation, man the philosopher will find ancestral voices to guide him.”34
At university in the early 60s, I think I was the only science undergraduate haunting the Anthropology section of the university library. Reading the creation myths of many diverse cultures convinced me that Velikovsky had made a case that must be answered. The Electric Universe cosmology is the result of a lifetime’s independent research shared with similarly inspired scholars from the arts, engineering and sciences. Because it includes human evidence of the sky stretching back into prehistory, it provides a surprisingly detailed big picture of the recent history of the solar system and our experiences of a series of dramatic interplanetary events. As a result, the Electric Universe is the only coherent cosmology that has correctly predicted and explained discoveries in the space age. And in 2019 a multi-million-dollar independent experiment to audit the electrical nature of stars was successfully completed.35 It will revolutionize the sciences. The Electric Universe is a scientific and cultural paradigm leap that must happen if we are to have a future on this blue jewel of a planet.
[1]Ralph Juergens, Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism, Pensée, Fall 1972, p. 9.
[2]Phys.org. Iron is everywhere in Earth’s vicinity.
[3]In a personal letter to Professor Solovine, dated 28 March 1949: “You can imagine that I look back on my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.” Quoted in B. Hoffman, Albert Einstein – Creator and Rebel (N.Y.: Viking Press, 1972).
[4]Marco M. Capria, Review of André K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics Apeiron, Montreal, 1999, pp. 285.
[5]André K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics, pp. 51-8, Apeiron, Montreal.
[6]A. K. T. Assis, Deriving gravitation from electromagnetism, Can. J. Phys. 70, pp. 330-40 (1992).
[7]W. Thornhill, Electric Comets & Asteroids.
[8]B. J.R. Davidsson et al. Nucleus properties of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 estimated from non-gravitational force modelling, Icarus 187 (2007) p. 312. The water production rate falls off “around 30 days pre-perihelion, and continuing for the next 50 days,” which is not expected in the icy comet model but may match the electrical model since it coincides with the minimum radial acceleration of the negative comet with respect to the positive Sun.
[9]Halton Arp, The Observational Impetus for Le Sage Gravity Pushing gravity: New perspective on Le Sage’s theory of gravity,(Apeiron, Montreal (2002).
[10]G. Burbidge et al. The Discovery of a High Redshift X-ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319.
[11]Edwin Hubble,“…on the basis of the evidence now available, a choice seems to be presented, as once before in the days of Copernicus, between a small, finite universe, and a sensibly infinite universe plus a new principle of nature. And, as before, the choice may be determined by the attribute of simplicity.” The Problem of the Expanding Universe. Science 1942; 95: pp. 212-215.
[12]Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Apeiron, Montreal (1998).
[13]See Eric J. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, p. 244 ff., Simon & Schuster, 1991.
[14]https://www.plasma-universe.com/galaxy-formation/, Electrical Birthing of Stars.
[15]ESA Report, 2 October 2009.
[16]Phys.org, “The water in Saturn’s rings and satellites is like that on Earth,” 3/12/2018.
[17]Phys.org, “The Origin of Binary Stars.” 21/8/2017.
[18]G. T. Marklund, Plasma Convection in Force-Free Magnetic Fields as a Mechanism for Chemical Separation in Cosmical Plasmas, Nature 1979; 277: 370-1.
[19]A. M. Stutz1 and A. Gould, Slingshot mechanism in Orion: Kinematic evidence for ejection of protostars by filaments, Astronomy & Astrophysics 590, A2 (2016).
[20]G. L. Verschuur, Neutral Hydrogen Filaments at High Galactic Latitudes, Astrophys Space Sci 1991; 185: 305-32.
[21]T. Holden, Do dinosaurs pose a gravity problem?
[22]Jan Lamprecht, Hollow Planets: A Feasibility Study of Possible Hollow Worlds, (2013).
[23]Phys.org, March 20, 2020, Initial findings of artificial impact on asteroid Ryugu.
[24]See https://etherealmatters.org/sam
[25]K. R. Healy, A. L. Peratt, Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, And Experiment, Astrophysics and Space Science 227: 229-253, 1995.
[26]G. B. Jeffery, W. Perrett, Sidelights on Relativity. Einstein A. Ether and the Theory of Relativity: An Address Delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.
[27]Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Apeiron 1998: p. 239.
[28]Bruce G. Charlton, Not Even Trying… The Corruption of Real Science, University of Buckingham Press.“..modern research is incoherent, and therefore whatever masquerades as checking and testing is not merely irrelevant but actively misleading – merely an excuse for unendingly funding permanently inconclusive research.”
[29]Sussman GJ, Wisdom J. Chaotic Evolution of the Solar System,Science 257(3): 56-62, 1992. “the evolution of the solar system as a whole is chaotic, with a time scale of exponential divergence of about 4 million years.”
[30]Fred Hoyle, Home is where the wind blows, pp. 285-6.
[31]Immanuel Velikovsky, Mankind in Amnesia,
[32]David Talbott, Thunderbolts of the Gods, (2002), Dwardu Cardona, Newborn Star, (2016), Ev Cochrane, Fossil Gods and Forgotten Worlds, (2010).
[33]David Harriman, The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics, 2010, p. 243.
[34]Jacques Barzun, Science: the glorious entertainment, p. 306.
[35]See safireproject.com
© Wallace Thornhill 2020