Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims.
Click here to sign the People's Proclamation and send it to everyone you know.
Source: Unbecoming
Official Stories is the most important book I have ever read. Liam Scheff is the best mind I have ever come across. It’s not the first time I have expressed this sentiment and it’s not going to be the last. The breadth and depth of his understanding and investigative work is quite frankly breathtaking. Having never met him, I miss him. I wish he was here today. It’s clear to me that Liam Scheff had a nose for truth, he could smell it, and he was good at identifying others that could smell it. Each one of the 11 chapters of the book are a signpost, pointing to places few even know exist, inviting you to wander and explore off the well-trodden path. If you are curious, you will wander, and like me, I believe you will discover people, places and ideas that map over reality far better than what the modern-day Scientists, of The Science™, with its Priests, Churches and Religions have been preaching to us and commanding us to unquestionably believe. For we live in a scientific dictatorship after all. I have published several chapters of Liam’s book, and this stack is no different; for my sins I have ordered and reordered many copies of his books to hand out to important and curious people in my life. I ask that you do the same, if you enjoy what Liam has left behind for us, please support his estate by buying copies of his book and hand them out to special people in your life. Official Stories: Counter-Arguments for a Culture in Need: Scheff, LiamAs Liam has done for me, with all his signposts, I want to amplify the reach of those pointers for others. This chapter is about electricity, but as you will see it is about so much more than that. I think I will be spending the rest of my life discovering and understanding what this chapter has pointed me to. I don’t really have much of a preamble on this one. What I would suggest is that you first read the chapter below, and if you are as fascinated by it all as I am, then come back and listen to Wal Thornhill and this short lecture.  And if your curiosity has well and truly been ignited then listen to this discussion.  And you will be “off to the races” as we Australians would say. Turns out Wal Thornhill is an Australian and has been in my backyard all this time, and The Science™ has made sure I have not heard about him, until now. Once again Liam, with eternal thanks and gratitude for what you left behind for us. Official Stories – chapter 9The Big Electric BangThe Official Story: The Big Bang. A singularity emerged from which the universe expanded. Or, “First there was nothing, which exploded.” The Lone Gunman: Gravity. The Magic Bullet: Endless time. Scratch 1: Invention. In school, maybe the 4th grade, I learned that there had been something called the “Big Bang.” No one explained it in much detail, because, in truth, there was little detail to share. It was called a theory, but it was more of a fable. It was invented by...? That's a good question, isn't it? When we're taught theories of electricity, we hear names like Ohm, Volta and Faraday. When we hear about light bulbs, we think, “Edison.” Telephones? “Bell.” And “Watson.” A side-note: my great-great grandfather, on my mother's side, was Thomas Watson, to whom Alexander Graham Bell said, “Watson, come here I want you.” No, it wasn't a moment of emotional vulnerability between two friends. These were supposedly the first words spoken on a telephone. And no, Bell didn't actually say that. Watson wrote it decades later, because he felt the event needed a little punching up. It was all too prosaic as it actually unfolded for his taste. I never met him, of course. I only knew it as family lore, but it is true. Watson was co-creator of the telephone, built a ton of them and helped set up and develop Bell labs. And I think that's pretty freaking great, honestly. Sure, he sunk the money into bad investments; he didn't hold it in a trust like the Bush Nazi bankers did, binding future generations to it with promises. He spent it, employed people, lost almost all of it, lived, traveled, flirted with Sufism, became a Shakespearean actor (or de Verean) and was a very interesting guy. And though I grew up without money, I am happy that he was a spiritual adventurer, rather than a covetous captain of industry. But, inventions. When we hear “telephone,” we think, “Bell.” (And “Watson.”) When we hear “gravity,” we think, “Isaac Newton.” Relativity? Einstein. Production motorcar? Ford. And so on. Great inventors and their inventions. But what about the “Big Bang?” This is it! The formative theory of all things. Life, the universe and the whole banana split: “First there was nothing, which exploded. Or, expanded.” And that's the theory. Or, the hypothesis. Or, really, the idea, because it's not actually testable (but we'll get to that). It's almost, well, it sounds a little like a creation myth, doesn't it? Like Genesis. “First there was the darkness, the Lord said, ‘Let there be light,’ and voila!” “There was silence on the face of the deep and the Lord said, BANG! Let's make it happen! Turn on the galaxy! Pump up the solar system! Give me some lions, bring on the people and make some italian ice for the beach! And let's all take a day off tomorrow.” What is operating in both of these models is a story-telling-device called “creation ex nihilo.” Creation from nothing. Why is it the same in both? One is a Biblical myth and the other is the central scientific idea of all astronomy, physics and life as we know it. They are the same because the man who invented the idea had a bias. He came to astronomy with a hobby - more than a hobby, a profession. His name was Georges Lemaître. He was European (but don't hold that against him). He was a mathematician, but before he played with numbers, he had another job. A very serious job, which he'd devoted a great deal of time to. Devotion is the right word, because Georges Lemaître was….wanna guess? Did you guess right? Yes, a priest. In fact, he was more than that, he was an Abbé, a ranking member of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium. Which is why this is the same story: “First there was nothing, then there was everything.” Creation ex nihilo. Big Bang theory is Biblical Genesis. It is a creation myth. You can't do science with it. You can't prove it. There are no facts or variables to work with. We cannot see the beginning or end of time. But the Belgian Priest so loved the Biblical stories that he lined up his two favorite pursuits and gave the world what he called “the cosmic egg.” “God made a cosmic egg, it hatched,” and so on. “So on” being everything else that has ever happened. There is a reason why they don't teach us in public school that Father Georges Lemaître invented Big Bang theory. Because the more observant and cagey students in the class would raise their hands and say, “Teacher, I thought we weren't allowed to learn religion in school?” Genesis With NumbersWhen he invented it, in the 1920s, the idea was seen for what it was: “No way, Georges, said his peers. “This is just Genesis with a few decimal places thrown in for looks.” But then, nobody had any better ideas. When did time start? Nobody had an answer. And something funny happened. The question got under their skin. Their need to have a creation myth was so strong, even among scientists, that the idea gained a few, “well, maybes.” As in, “Well, maybe it could've happened. Let's say it did and start plotting some variables and see if we can make some theoretical math out of it.” And that's what happened. So, there are numbers. There are debates about which numbers are “probably more correct,” and consensus agreements to give it an air of orderliness. All of the numbers are pure inventions, but the idea goes like this: There is some radiation in our sector of the galaxy. It is believed that by measuring some aspect of this, you can tell how old the universe is. This is only slightly less whimsical than saying, “There is some dirt around this worm I've found. By measuring the age of the dirt, I can tell you how old you, your car and your country are.” It's local radiation, which is going to be different everywhere. But that's what they chose, so they have all kinds of dates and numbers and they usually round them up or down a few trillion years to whatever's in fashion. And if you believe it, you should open a worm-farm, because I hear they're very good at picking lottery numbers. The other little thing they glommed onto was light. The officials decided that you could tell how old the universe was by looking at objects through telescopes. Faint objects glow a little to the red, which impressed viewers, who decided that “red shift” was an absolute indicator of speed (away from Earth) and therefore distance and therefore age, since their idea of a beginning of time. Of course, they were stupendously wrong. Red and blue act like complex indicators of energy level, not just markers of distance and movement to and from the Earth. And that's about it. They don't really have anything else, which is why the mainstream has been getting ready to bury Big Bang theory for at least a decade. Mainstream science magazines are regularly testing the market value of various “new” theories of the creation of the universe. “Big Bounce” universes. “Multi-dimensional membranes colliding into each other” universes. “Bubble” universes. Or, “Screaming, obnoxious robots that look like 70's model cars and trucks are coming to Earth to ruin the lives of parents and the minds of children” universes. Well, not that last one, but it makes about as much sense as what NASA is coming up with. And it's not really worth talking about, except to ask the question: “Can we see a beginning of the universe?” Because that is the question that the “Big Bang” is attempting to answer. It's not a scientific question. It is an existential question - a question of existence. Astronomers who aren't defending Georges Lemaître's Bible stories will tell you honestly - “No.” The universe looks infinite. We cannot spy a beginning or an end. There seems to be no formative point of creation, only an endless creative process. Stars are forged daily. Planets erupt from the cocoons of gas giants. The universe hums along galaxy-wide power lines, shooting current into the middle of plasma clouds, making and making and making new worlds. She's So HeavyBlaming the Big Bang for the universe puts astronomers in the difficult position of trying to model what they see in space as though it all had exploded out of a dot. This is not how galaxies look or act, so most astronomers are being driven insane by data that does not fit their models. We should probably feel sorry for them (except for the fact that they're spending our tax money to do their bad science). Imagine their task. You want to be an astronomer. You love the sky; it makes your heart sing. You get to school and encounter this monolith, this whopper; the Big Bang. Your professor says, “You want to be an astronomer? Make this work.” It's like trying to prove that all the water in all of the seas in the world dripped through the bottom of a dixie cup, in less than one second. In fact, it's infinitely worse. It's like arguing that the entire universe dripped through the bottom of a dixie cup in less than one second. This is not what the visible evidence shows. The official story-tellers know with their telescopes and eyes, and I think with their hearts, that this is a stupefyingly idiotic way to try to do science. But if it's not their eyes and hearts, then it's some part of their ego that's getting in the way, because they're clinging onto it for dear, well, mortgage. Pension. Reputation. Vaingloriousness. Lack of self-worth. I don't know, whatever drives men like theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University to keep peddling this stuff. You can look him up. He thinks life is “a bit of pollution.” An accident in the cosmos. And because Lawrence has tenure, we're stuck with Georges’ cosmic egg. In Father Georges’ model, there is only one force operating. Or really, two. First, the inexplicable “Bang.” The explosion (or expansion) and re-expansion that started it all. (They've had to add “expansions” over time to deal with observed reality not conforming to their fable.) The second force in the official story - the one responsible for holding entire galaxies together, forming stars and keeping us on the basketball court - is gravity. We take it for granted, because it is granted by the planet we live on. Isaac Newton defined it but did not offer a source of its power. And though it is what makes our lives on the thin surface of our planet possible, we break it all the time and with ease, because it is an especially weak force. Not that we think of it that way, but it is. You defy it just by standing up. Paper airplanes soar effortlessly on the slightest winds. The entire gravity of the planet cannot hold them to the surface given even a little breeze. Mainstream astronomers agree: gravity is a weak force and cannot explain the formation of galaxies, stars or the universe. Gravity falls off quickly, at the distance squared; 4 times the distance is 1/16th the strength; 8 is 1/64th; 16 times the distance is only 1/256th the original attraction. That’s not enough to hold stars light years away to a galactic center. But stars in galaxies do just that. They move in perfect sync, like spokes on a bicycle wheel. This gives galaxies their distinctive pinwheel shape. So, what’s holding them in place? (We’ll come to that soon.) The real reason we're stuck with gravity is because, like Georges Lemaître, current astronomers think it's still the 1600s. That is where their current scientific models come from, because that is when Isaac Newton lived. “And what's wrong with that?” You ask. “He was a genius, after all.” And he was. But he lived in a world without the one thing that he needed to understand how the universe is powered. What didn't Newton have at his bedside? When he wanted to work late he had to light a candle. Because he didn't have? Electricity. It is electricity which carries the electromagnetic (EM) force, which is something that Newton did not, really could not know about. He certainly could not work with it experimentally. Which is why being stuck in 1687 is bad for astronomy. But what makes the EM force so special? The answer: strength, reach, flexibility, variety of expression and life-giving properties. The EM force is stronger than gravity by a factor so great you'll think I'm pulling your leg. It is a thousand, trillion, trillion, trillion times stronger. That's ten with 39 zeros. Imagine what the EM force can do that gravity can't. It can pull material in from far away and squeeze it so tightly that you could make a planet out of dust.
While gravity is only a weakly attractive force, the EM force acts like a power-line. It courses, pulses, spirals, spins, scavenges, heats, rolls, pinches and forms a variety of layered, cellular structures in space. Not only does it attract from a distance without falling off so quickly as gravity, it also holds currents separate at near proximity. It attracts and repels. It shapes and preserves the integrity of the spinning cords and sheets that it creates. That's what space is filled with - the electromagnetic force. You see it in quasars, pulsars and stars and in the hourglass and butterfly shapes of nebulae. It forms the wrinkled silk of the aurora borealis and the fractal branches of lightning. But NASA does not care, because they've made their bed with gravity and are stuck with it, for reasons we'll get into. They know it's too weak to do the job, so to keep galaxies together scientists have invented space monsters - things that do not exist are “invisible” and cannot be observed - like “black holes” and “dark matter,” to explain the profound energetic circuits of the universe. But I've gotten ahead of myself and probably everyone else. Let's go back to the start of the problem, wherein we find the solution. Sir IsaacIsaac Newton was born in the mid-17th Century. He was an alchemist, a spiritualist, a deist; he believed in the unseen and invisible power of a mind at work in all things. He was not a reductionist and unlike René Descartes, or Louis Pasteur (who we met in Chapter 5 on Vaccines), he did not take dogs apart to find the woof. It was the age of rejecting church dogma, ghosts, spirits and all things that could not be seen or measured. So, when Isaac said to his peers, “I have discovered that there is a force, like an invisible rope that holds the moon to the Earth and the Earth to the Sun and I call it ‘gravity,’” they all said, “Isaac! You're crazy! There is no invisible rope holding the moon to the Earth and the Earth to the Sun! You loon!” They lampooned him and drew cartoons of his foolishness. So Isaac invented the Calculus (along with Leibniz, which shows you that ideas do flow through the ether) and demonstrated to all that he could perfectly predict the path of the moon around the Earth, the Earth around the Sun and the Planets through the sky. His colleagues and peers said, “Isaac! You're a genius! Of course there is an invisible rope that holds the moon to the Earth and the Earth to the Sun and it's called gravity! Hip Hip Hoorah!” Isaac told them, in sum, “I don't know what makes the planets do this - I don't know the source of gravity, I give that to the greater mind that makes all things,” but no one listened, they were too busy worshiping their new God, because they thought that gravity was all they would ever need.
And that's it. That's how it happened. We've been stuck there ever since because scientists are priests and when one of them performs a miracle, they spend the next 500 years talking about it. Which leads us to: The Daydreams of Immanuel KantIn the 1700s, the grumpy professor of philosophy from Koenigsberg, Prussia, Immanuel Kant, famous for his right-as-clockwork walks about town, began a “thought experiment” about astronomy. “If gravity is the force that makes all things in the heavens, as we have learned from the great Isaac” he said to himself, ignoring what Isaac said about not being God, “then how, using gravity alone, can I imagine the creation of a solar system?” And he imagined a great gassy cloud, slowly being pulled together into a clump, which, in the forge of his mind, separated into one large hot clump in the center and then many much smaller clumpettes swimming around it, rotating for some reason, in elliptical circles. This was his model of the creation of the solar system. He did not ask, “Why would gravity, a weak attractive force, cause all of the dust to spin in a circle? Why would gravity separate clumps from other clumps into distinct and different bodies? Why would some of the clumps burst into flames?” (I've got a pile of socks under my bed and they've never formed into a star.) No, he didn’t ask. Neither did anyone else, apparently, because the 18th Century thought-experiment of Immanuel Kant - the “nebular hypothesis” of galaxies - is NASA's going model. That's right, your tax-dollars are going to aid NASA in testing professor Kant's daydream. The good news is, as models go, it is a total and complete failure. It fails every simulation, every test, every computer modeling, every observation through a telescope. Did I say that was good news? I meant, this isn't a science, it's a cult. A cult worshipping an old discovery. So, what's new? Plug-and-PlayYou can't fault Isaac for not knowing about the more powerful force. He lived in the era before electricity. There were no streetlights, no blenders, radios, TVs, power stations, transformers or batteries. Or cell phones, thank God. (Talk about a harbinger of the apocalypse. Bloody cell phones. I don't think this is what grandpa Watson intended. He was a spiritualist, after all.) Isaac did not include electricity in his equations, because it wasn't part of his world. It is a new phenomenon in human society to be able, at will, to motivate flowing electrons to do work. We are in a different age - and NASA still hasn't caught up. But some independent scientists have. They’re called plasma physicists. The universe is filled with plasma. It is the fourth state of matter, after solid, liquid and gas, but it's the first by volume, comprising 99.9999 percent of the universe. It’s a sea of charged particles, carrying electric current in voltages ranging from so low they barely register to so high they burn at millions of degrees. It's a Living ThingPlasma looks alive: it forms into thin cell-walls in space, millions of light years across; it curls into spinning vortexes, like fiery tornadoes; it glows warmly and forms cocoon-like enclosures. It beams and twists and exerts such a power of attraction that it scavenges all the material around it and superheats it, pinching it down into orbs. You've seen plasma but don't realize it. The spiraling serpents of light we see in pictures from the Hubble telescope - these are plasma. The glowing filaments emanating from nebulae, like Medusa's hair - plasma. And here on Earth, neon lights and the sun-bright lightning swords used in arc welding - and lightning itself - are plasmas. Electrically-charged particles in a gaseous state. Plasma acts differently depending on its density and level of charge. When the particles are few and dispersed, the plasma runs dark. Increasing the density makes it glow, like in neon. And tightly-bunched, highly-charged particles burst into sun-bright streamers - plasma in arc mode - like in lightning and the surface of the sun. The plasma physicists who study this most abundant form of matter have discovered that by placing it - and not gravity - at the center of astronomy, the secrets begin to unravel and we can finally answer many of the big questions about outer space. We Knew It!Plasma currents have a name, Birkeland currents, for the astronomer and adventurer, Kristian Birkeland. Kristian adventured to Norway; he told his peers that the neon lights in the sky - the aurora borealis - were an electrical phenomena - “They are charged particles moving in currents emanating from the Sun, exploding against our protective atmosphere,” he said. “Kristian, you're crazy! The Sun isn’t shooting electrical rays at us. It's just hot gas. You loon!” said the scientific mainstream. Until data telescopes revealed that they were, in fact, ionized particles running in currents into our planet’s poles, at which point they said, “Of course it's an electrical phenomena coming from the sun! We always knew it was!” Catherine WheelsGalaxies rotate in a particular way - the outermost stars stay in position with the center. The pinwheel or rotor-shapes of galaxies are permanent features. The outer stars don't lag and fall off. They are attracted across the entire field. But if gravity were in charge, we'd have no galaxies. It is so weak a force that it couldn't hold such a shape, a wheel of stars, together. They'd fall off the ends; the middle would clump together and the whole thing would lose integrity. It would end up like a bit of overcooked spaghetti wound around a fork. Or, really, just a pile of couscous, without much shape at all. Not that stars are couscous. But you get the idea - galaxies need a much stronger force than gravity to keep them alive. And they have one - the EM force. Anthony Peratt, plasma physicist at Los Alamos labs, has modeled plasma particles moving down a column. Guess what shape they form in cross-section? No, not couscous. Right, Catherine wheels, pinwheels; exactly like galaxies. It’s the natural shape of a plasma flow. Nature takes two repeated forms, in all her expressions: the spiral and the Lichtenberg figure. The spiral - it’s seen in all living things: hurricanes, tornados, whirlpools and seashells, tree trunks, plant stalks, sunflowers, eyes, fingertips and nipples. From the atomic matrix of crystals and DNA to the shape of galaxies, it is the universal signature and an electromagnetic event. The other form, the Lichtenberg figure, is another name for the shape of lightning. It also appears everywhere: our veins and arteries, the branches and roots of trees and plants and of our lungs; the pattern of flowing water as it streams down river deltas. This is the fractal figure: the branch that branches, the small repeating the large. The lightning pattern is also a spiral pattern; it branches outward as it turns. Electricity is everywhere - in space, in the atmosphere and inside of planets. Earth is shot through with “telluric” currents, electricity coursing through the seas and ground. They’ve been measured at up to a million amps in Australia and a billion deep in the planet. Life itself is powered by electricity. We run on food that is turned into molecules from which we draw charged particles. The collagen that forms the majority of our tissue (skin, hair and connective tissue) is a triple helix of protein, which some researchers (like Dr. Mae-Wan Ho) have called a polyphasic liquid crystal, a perfect system for proton conduction. If our bodies are liquid crystals, we are sensing our world through subtle electrical signals received through our skin and organs.
Lab researchers have noted that electrical impulses guide the formation of developing animals. For example, the faces of tadpoles show up as electrical pulses on the surface of their skin before any tissue-formation takes place. Electricity is the guide. It is everywhere and may be everything. Mainstream astronomers will tell you that it’s just “random chance” that the universe works this way. That in all things, the infinitely small and large mirror each other, that life is formed of repeating motifs, always subtly and unsubtly re-arranging into an endless variety of forms. It’s clear to me that the universe is creative, alive and thinking. After all, it forms itself into us and everything else that exists. (If you think it's all a grand accident, there's a Richard Dawkins book on the shelf waiting for you.) Let’s test the theory. If outer space is made of charged plasma, it should be able to explain the outstanding mysteries of astronomy. Model StarsThe Official Story: Stars are nuclear explosions in space. The Lone Gunman: Gravity. The Magic Bullet: No one really has one yet. When humans first saw stars, they felt what we all feel. It even has its own word: starstruck. We marvel, we beam, our pupils open wide to let in the twinkling light. We feel that someone somewhere out there is looking at us, looking at them. It's a wonderful, transcendent feeling. When natural philosophers first set out to make a model of stars, they looked at fire on Earth - campfires, coal fires, forest and oil fires - and decided that stars were the same thing, only way up there. When humans forced the atomic attractions apart and exploded those monstrous bombs, they rethought the “campfire in space” model and called stars “nuclear furnaces.” But neither campfires nor nuclear explosions relate to what data-collecting telescopes have told us about the Sun. First, where is a campfire hottest: above the fire, or in the burning coals? Don't try to figure it out with bare hands. The answer is, in the source of the energy for the flame - the burning coals. Where is a nuclear explosion hottest: in the center, at ground zero or a hundred miles away? Visitors to Hiroshima and Nagasaki know the answer. All fires and explosions are hottest and most violent at their source of energetic origin - the center. Where would you expect a star to be hottest: in the center, on the surface, or high above in its upper atmosphere? The surface of the Sun is about 5,700 degrees Celsius. That's almost four times the melting point of steel - which is hot. But it's surprisingly cool when you think that it warms our little planet, 93 million miles away. So, how hot is the center? No one knows - no one's been to or seen the center of a star, but sunspots do give a shallow view beneath the surface. Sunspots remain a mystery to the mainstream. They are like moving craters in the Sun, depressions in the surface revealing a glimpse of what's underneath. And what’s underneath is cooler, by thousands of degrees. This isn’t how a nuclear explosion works. But it makes sense to plasma physicists, who see sunspots as points where the strongest current flow from the galaxy punches holes in the bright surface, pushing back the sea of burning arc-plasma tornadoes that make up the surface of the Sun and revealing a sub-surface thousands of degrees cooler. Does it make sense for a nuclear explosion? The mainstream has no explanation for this, just some impromptu hand-waving about disconnected magnetic fields (without understanding their electrical nature) with the obligatory catchphrase: “Another anomaly - send more money for research!” But 10,000 kilometers above the surface, in the Sun’s atmosphere, called the corona, for “crown,” the temperature heats up. Not to thousands, but to millions of degrees, two to ten million. The Sun and all stars are hottest far above their surface. Why would that be? The answer is, it's not a campfire. It's plasma. If space is a sea of charged particles, then what should stars be, but massive gathering nodes for electrical current. Here's the model: electrical lines of current in space, converging in a plasma, burst into arc mode as they concentrate on a large, central sphere. The Sun itself is an anode - not the source of energy, but a gathering point. The space around it is superheated by the convergence of plasma power lines, which burst into lightning arcs, reaching millions of degrees in the corona. The power comes from outside of the Sun. Which is why it's cooler beneath the fire on top. And if you don't believe it, understand that the official story admits all of this - the Sun is hottest far above its surface. They don't have an answer - they call it the “solar coronal heating problem.” They add it to a long list of “problems,” and keep collecting coins for their going theory. It's gotta be rough to be a tenured academic researcher. They might as well put a sign on their clubhouse: “No new ideas allowed.” By the way, I once overheard my uncle, the AIDS researcher, talking about places of possible employment for a Ph.D. He remarked “Well, there’s always the NIH, they never fire you.” In other words, it's nice to guard the clubhouse. Except for the rest of us. Electric StarsThere are two researchers who've done more exploration of this model than any others I know of: Ralph Juergens, who devised the electric sun model, and Wal Thornhill, who pursued and expanded it and who introduced it to readers and researchers through his incredible essays at holoscience.com. I want to thank them both and I hope you look up their work. Ralph left the Earth behind in 1979, but look up his papers, I'll bet he'll appreciate it. And here it is: the electric sun. Power-lines throttle through galaxies and converge in massive star forges. They increase in size and power and attract more and more material. Their attractive force increases as the particle flow becomes denser and brighter; it begins to scavenge local materials. As plasma researcher Wal Thornhill told me in a 2010 interview: “As far as we can see – and when I say ‘see,’ I mean that radio telescopes are very important in the electric universe because they can detect radio waves and detect their polarization. The polarization of the radio waves allows you to map the magnetic field directions in space. Once you’ve done that, it’s a given in plasma physics that electric currents will flow along the direction of the ambient magnetic field lines. So in other words, you can begin to trace the circuits in deep space. We find the galaxies themselves arranged like Catherine Wheels – that’s the great spiral galaxies – along intergalactic power lines, what are called Birkeland currents. They’re like giant twisted pairs of electric currents which flow through space. In various places, if the density of matter – the gases and dust in space – are sufficient, these pinch down. It’s called a magnetic pinch [or z-pinch]. In pinching down, they scavenge the matter from the surrounding space and squeeze it, heat it, rotate it and form the stars that we see. They do that in a particular pattern which we can reproduce in the laboratory. That pattern is the spiral galaxy. It’s an organic picture of the universe and it’s a connected picture. We’re not isolated islands in space. Stars are not isolated, they’re connected electrically and gravitationally. It’s a completely new way of looking at our place in the universe.” The mainstream can’t get its head out of the 17th Century to examine electricity in space, but without it, they’re lost. The attractive and explosive forces in outer space are monumental. What holds galaxies together? What energy source drives the star forges? It’s not allowed to be electricity, that’s dinged from the start. Instead, it’s left up to old Immanuel Kant, again. Yes, NASA is back in the land of gravity, doing another thought- experiment. Black Hole SunsIn order to super-charge the universe, the official story has invented three sources of attraction and energy that no one can check up on. To keep galaxies from flying apart, we’re given “black holes - collapsed stars, whose gravity is so powerful that not even light can escape!” And “dark matter - the invisible gravity-generating strange material that astronomers believe comprises up to 99% of the universe!” It’s pretty impressive stuff and really has moved science fiction television to some neat-o special effects. Which is appropriate, because that’s about how real these things are. Both are “invisible.” Both can only be detected by inference, “indirectly.” Both exist to fill in the holes left by Big Bang theory’s gravity-only edict. Add a little electricity to the model and the “darkness” goes away. In 2010, Smithsonian Magazine did a feature on the mysteries of the “dark” forces in space, writing, “[theoretical physicist] Michael Turner coined the term “dark energy” in 1998. No one knows what it is.” The reason for that is because it isn’t. Black holes, in the standard scientific literature, can be as massive as “18 billion suns” or one whole galaxy and as small as an atom. But no one can see them. You might be sitting in one right now, as far as NASA is concerned, because the official story-tellers love to stick these things wherever there is an unexplained burst of heat, light or energy. From their point-of-view, your lamp might contain a black hole. Does this make sense? The thing that doesn’t let any light escape is always identified by a magnificent, sustained burst of light and energy? It sure sounds like light is escaping. And what kind of creature can be either as tiny as an atom, or as massive as a galaxy and still be invisible? (Answer: a make-believe creature.) If NASA wanted to know the source of the power in space, they’d look at electricity, but for some reason, they can’t get themselves to do it. Even while they claim that “99%” of the energy in the universe comes from an invisible peanut butter called “dark energy,” they admit that 99.9% of the universe is made of electrified plasma, which they can detect and measure, but choose to ignore. But they tease it sometimes and talk about the presence of massive electromagnetic signatures in space. But they try to strap it to some Big Bang effect. Clearly, they’re trying to save their bacon, or seven decades of investment in Father Georges’ Bible story. Maybe there are still too many middle-aged tenured professors making money selling “dark matter” fables to their students. Look online, you’ll see a thousand hits for “dark matter mysteries deepen! Send more cash!” There is a saying in the sciences, that all the old men have to die before a new idea can be accepted. I don’t want to be so hard as that. Maybe they can all just fall into a black hole. I hear they’re everywhere. Splitting StarsThe official version goes like this: Stars are nuclear furnaces. They are born from gravity-collapse, or black holes, or “we're still guessing.” They move from small, hot and white, to large, red and cool, after which they either collapse or explode or turn into more black holes. Which cannot be seen, measured or validated. Stars are always on one course - from bright to dim, smaller to supergiant. And this cannot be reversed, says the mainstream. But if all of this is bogus and stars are powered electrically from the outside, what would happen if the electron flow were to sag or leap? In the electrical model, when incoming current wanes, the star receives less energy and therefore glows less brightly. If the current increases, the star glows brighter and hotter. But it also changes in size. You're on a sailboat. What do you do to catch more wind? Unfurl the sail - open it wide. And when you want to avoid capsizing in a strong wind? Contract, pull it in. You only need a little bit of a strong wind to power your voyage. In the electrical model, a star, trying to catch more current, expands - it glows a lower color on the heat registry, from white to orange to red - but gets larger and more diffuse. It becomes a red giant star. The official story says a red giant is a star at the end of its life. It will soon go out. But astronomers have seen what they cannot believe. They have seen red giants contracting and glowing brighter for a period and then expanding again and glowing redder or cooler. They change in size, color and temperature. This just doesn't work in the conventional model. But it works in the electrical. Why? Because a star adjusts to its current flow. Given a spike, it brightens; given a dip, it expands and dims. What if there is a spike in the current so violent that it over-whelms the star’s capacity to carry it? You can only glow so bright before you explode, after all - and that is close to what happens. In order to deal with a too-strong current, a star will schism - split - in two. A star will literally divide, like a cell undergoing mitosis, into two smaller stars. By doing this, a star can increase receptive surface area by about 40% and thereby spread the strong current across two bodies, normalizing it. You end up with a twin - two stars, circling each other in a tight orbit. Some twins even split again and become quadruplets and sextuplets. Which is not something even old Professor Kant imagined. But this is just what astronomers have found. They have been surprised to discover that a majority of stars are twins. Why? Because electrical current in space can dip and jolt and cause major changes. Even cataclysms. Half-GlowStars grow, shrink, adjust to current strength and schism. But what if a current is unevenly distributed across its face? What would you see then? What would a star that wasn't receiving enough voltage do? It might exude a very low glow. It might flicker or be only partially illuminated. It might even start to look like a very large planet. And this is precisely what astronomers have found. They call them “hot Jupiters”: Jupiter and Saturn-like planets that give a low red or brown glow, wrapping their many moons in a cocoon of warm light. They are at the minimum voltage of low-glow stars, called red or brown dwarfs, but they are clearly Jupiter-like planets. These star-planets can be very cool. One recently-discovered low-glow star, about 6 times the size of Jupiter, is believed to be between 80-160˚F, about as hot as a summer day in Texas. Try to do that with a “nuclear bomb in space.” There is even one hot Jupiter that is a one-third star. That is, a third of it is a star - that segment of the planet that is receiving a strong EM flow. The rest is a gas giant planet. Some of it glows, some of it doesn’t. That is some very strong evidence for the electric star model. Which I think is pretty freaking great, honestly. Because it means that me, you and everything we know lives in an electrical universe. Which means that we really don't understand what we are, or how we work and we're just at the beginning. And if we survive our stupidity, we might learn to be a more interesting species. Maybe. This understanding opens doors of exploration into energy, our senses and everything about us that is electrical. We haven’t begun to understand what we really are, how much we sense or what life really is. But that's probably too “out there” for most NASA-heads. Which is why we're having so many problems. Pregnant PlanetsWhen large stars receive energy jolts, they split into two. What happens when one of these lower-voltage stars expels material? Large stars schism. Can small ones do the same? Wal Thornhill puts this idea forward - that small stars under electrical pressure expel hot material that cools into familiar objects. (Hint: you’re standing on one.) If it sounds odd to think that stars give birth to planets, let's look at the official story. We're back to Immanuel Kant and a miraculous separation of space dust into both planets, stars, twin stars and whatever else needs to be accounted for. The mainstream can't make this work in a simulation. Real solar systems look nothing like the mess of cottage cheese you'd get from a dust accumulation. But taking a look at Jupiter-sized gas giants, astronomers note that they are surrounded by two things - a ring of expelled material and dozens of moons. Where did the moons come from? Wal hypothesizes that they were expelled in a strong discharge - born, in that sense. Just as stars split into twins, so low-glow stars expel material that cools into small planets and moons. It’s planetary birth, replete with a placenta of sorts. The smaller pieces of expelled materials rotate around the planet’s axis and form a ring, like the rings of Saturn. If it sounds fanciful, try counting the dozens of moons around these giants and note that all of our gas giants have rings. Have planets ever been seen being ejected? Well, we don't have telescope video cameras in every corner of the galaxy, like today's totalitarian societies have on every street corner. But astronomers have noted that small, rocky planets do appear circling brown dwarf (or hot Jupiter) stars. So, stars split and schism, a majority of the stars in the sky are twins and low-glow stars spit out hot rocks that cool into planets. And the universe seems suddenly like a much more living system than some wind-up bit of cold clockwork. Which should probably tell us something about the nature of life, if we'd like to listen. But NASA is not up to speed yet, so write them a letter and tell them to get their assumptions out of the 17th Century. Imagine what we could do by investigating the infinite energy of plasma? Maybe we could figure out how to give electricity to everyone on Earth without polluting so much. But knowing us, we'd probably build some kind of new super-weapon and use it to scare everybody to death for the next 200 years. (Oh, well.) Coup de FoudreThe mainstream has a truly outstanding bit of official storiness to describe the one electrical process we see on Earth all the time. Lightning. Here's a natural for the electrical model of space. The Earth is a charged polar magnetic body moving through space. That space has its own electrical charge. They have to equalize their charges - so they spark, regularly. Voila - lightning. It is planetary static electricity. The Earth sparks with space, space sparks with the Earth, because each carries a variable charge. You do it yourself. You walk across a carpet generating a charge. You touch a metal doorknob - a conductor with a different charge - and sparks jump. Lightning. And if this explanation makes too much sense, let's look at the official story. The mainstream, who cannot look at space as an electrified medium, have come up with this beauty: lightning is currently believed to originate in clouds. No, it is not due to the electrical nature of space. It comes about when… ready? Ice crystals rub together. This is the official explanation. And they admit that it's another “problem,” like the temperature of the Sun, the fluctuating nature of stars, sunspots, the tilt of the planets and many, many more. As official stories go, it's about ready to topple. Freezers around the world have not exploded with massive trillion-watt (that's a-mighty big!) lightning discharges. So why do they offer something so deeply, profoundly, exquisitely moronic? (A trillion watts, by the way, or terawatt, is what the mainstream says the average stroke of lightning provides.) The mainstream cannot allow that lightning occurs because of the electrical nature of space. If they did, they’d open the door to the rest of the electric universe model. Which puts university Ph.D. professors, who've spent decades writing defensive treatises on how the Big Bang might still have a little something to it, in the dog house. Not only out of work, but deeply humbled. And that is just not a color that upper-level academics wear. The official estimate for energy use on the whole planet is about 15 terawatts per year. A half-second terawatt lightning bolt happens as a natural discharge from Earth to space and back over a million times each day (The official estimate gets up to 8.6 million). Maybe we should study the energy source that powers that? Or, do we want to keep mining for plutonium to boil water for “safe” nuclear power, so we can stick with the magic icicles story? (Can you imagine how hard NASA is working to NOT figure this out? Ice cubes? Really?) Spin MeIf you like the concept of “electrical” (and not ice-crystal) lightning, here's a kissing cousin. Name another immensely powerful, immediately identifiable, skinny, vertical force of natural destruction, that also reaches from the heavens to the Earth. What spinning funnel of air, turning in tight spirals (there's that word again) at 110 miles-per-hour may in fact be an electromagnetic event? Whoever said “tornados” wins the prize! Of course, tornados have an official explanation too and it's about as good as snow-cone lightning. Ready? The mainstream explanation for these devastating, unpredictable, vertical tubes of freight-train loud buzz-saw sharp wind is? Warm air meeting cool air. Pretty anti-climactic, really. But the electrical model suggests that a tornado is best understood as a similar process to lightning. It is a massive electric discharge and redistribution of current. That is, a tornado is a tight, violent spiral of electrons equilibrating charge from the upper to lower atmosphere. It is “slow lightning,” achieving the same equalizing discharge, but over a longer period. I was once in Arkansas for a summer. It’s called “Tornado Alley” for a reason; the thunderstorms had a mythic intensity. It was like the ancient Gods were fighting in the heavens and any one of them was going to come crashing down through the cloud cover in a moment. I was new to the area, so I asked a local for the signs of impending doom. I was told that the sky turns green before a tornado hits. Green, as in a neon glow. It sounds like the effect of charged particles, of electrified plasma. But what do scientists say? Is there any evidence of an electric surge? The answer rings the bell: yes, lightning has been seen and photographed inside and around the funnel. “Luminosity” is also a feature of tornados (which the mainstream likes to say is a misreading of background light sources). But tornado funnels have been seen glowing, especially where they touch ground. Lightning strikes also diminish during tornado activity and return to normal levels after tornados have passed. This fits the electric model, which argues that the tornado is releasing the pent-up differential charge between the planet and the upper atmosphere. But you won’t find this in the Wikipedia. “Warm, moist air meets cool, dry air” is the de facto answer for all of conventional meteorology. Hurricane? High pressure meets low pressure. Snowstorm? High pressure meets low pressure. Tornado? Ditto. It would be a hell of a thing to figure out that all weather on Earth was really a mass effect of the electromagnetic relationship between Earth, the space around it and the body that charges that space the most - our Sun. It might even turn out that our star is far more influential in creating large-scale heating and cooling patterns, than is our excess CO2. But that’s another official story! Foggy MexicoImagine if we came to understand weather enough to make it rain. Well, take off your waiting hat because it's happened. In central Mexico, increased rainfall has been brought on by an electrical ion flow shot into the sky. The mainstream press reported that ELAT, a Mexico City-based company (with U.S. and Canadian partners), using technology developed by Russian researchers, built a large-scale air ionizer in a plot of dry pasture land in Aguascalientes (“hot water”), Mexico. From 2000 to 2002, the company claimed a doubling of rainfall in the area, leading to a 61 percent increase in bean yields for the region. This was repeated in Abu-Dhabi in 2010. It was reported in the world press that large-scale air ionization created 52 rainstorms there over a three month period, even whipping up winds and forming hail. You may look at this is a terrible thing - more power in the hands of people who abuse the power we already have - but it's another bell ring for the electric universe model. You Old DinosaurIsaac Newton never postulated a source of gravity; he only observed its existence and gave an algorithm for determining its influence. So, what is gravity? Where does it come from? Wal Thornhill, our friend in plasma physics, has hypothesized, along with others in the research, that gravity is in fact an electrical phenomenon. A weak electrical phenomena, to be sure, but one nonetheless. Some molecules are “polar,” and have positive and negative poles like a magnet. Water is a polar molecule. The two hydrogens form a positive end to the negative oxygen. Water lines up in an extremely orderly way, stacked pole to pole in sheets, which increases their polarization. This is important because water is what makes life possible. Its crystalline qualities - getting lighter when it freezes (instead of sinking and drowning everything beneath it), floating in hundred thousand pound clouds (defying gravity, by the way) and raining down in life-giving sustenance - make life possible.
Wal postulates that not only molecules but atoms also have slight positive and negative poles. The atoms that make up planets are arrayed outward like bicycle spokes, pole to pole. He argues that it is this weak but continuous pos-neg subatomic array that creates gravity. It is the tiny residual force of internal subatomic polarization in very large objects. And back to water; when it condenses into clouds, its polar configuration intensifies, sheeting into layers that we call clouds and generating a top-to-bottom charge. Wal points out that “the tops of storm clouds are positively charged and the base is negative. That is the reverse of the radial charge polarization within the Earth itself.” Water is doing here what plasma does throughout the solar system, galaxy and universe; it forms distinct double layers, like giant cell walls, just like the positively and negatively-charged walls of our own cells. These cells appear throughout the universe: as filamentary sheets of H2O in the atmosphere, repelling gently off the Earth's charge. As the magnetosphere, the protective EM placenta around the planet, saving us from a devastating barrage of solar radiation. And as a bubble around the entire solar system, forming a layer at the boundary of the Sun's influence, separating our little cell from the others in the electric circulatory system. The alternative is the official story: that billions of tons of water float above our heads because a little warm air, rising from the surface of the planet, holds up the cloud layer. That’s the official story: rising warm air. And if you believe that, I suppose you can go to Antarctica and measure the temperature on the top of the clouds, where the Sun is beating down, and the bottom, where clouds obscure all light and cover the day in frigid darkness. Then take whatever variable you get, the one or two degrees in one direction or another and go blow on an elephant's foot and see if you can get it to levitate. Because that's in line with the official story too. Me, I'll take electric gravity over hot air, any day. Turn It Up, Turn It DownGravity is a force that occurs in a relationship between two objects: you and the Earth, planets and the Sun. But is gravity always the same? Wal suggests that gravity is a variable, not a constant. That its attractive force depends on the electrical relationship between the smaller body - the planet - and its sun. And while this may be too far off the beam for you, let me assure you that there are mysteries to be unfolded here. Because I think gravity on Earth has changed. Or, something equally monumental has happened. And I say this for one reason. BrontosaurusThere were animals on Earth who once lived, flew, roamed, walked, swam, ate, made babies and deposited huge piles of poop. And as exciting as they are to watch recreated in digital movies, the reality of six-story dinosaurs presents one major problem to the paleontologists who study their bones and reconstruct their bodies. They are too big to have ever breathed a single breath. The largest dinosaurs - at 40 to 80 tons, 80-150 feet in length and up to 60 feet tall, could not have functioned, breathed or gotten off one heartbeat from their chest to their sky-high heads in today's gravity. For the mainstream, this gets filed under “dinosaur existence problem.” But they did exist. Or, somebody played a grand trick on everybody and planted a lot of bones for us to find. But I don't think so. I think they were here - and I think they lived on a planet with less gravity. Which provides a wonderful riddle. What is a planet, anyway? Chapter notes and resourcesSearch Terms: Big Bang and (as religion, Georges Lemaître, falsified, red shift, Halton Arp), Hannes Alfvén, Kristian Birkeland, plasma physics, z-pinch, Newton, electric and (gravity, weather, universe) www:Holoscience.com (Wal Thornhill’s site, paradigm-shifting), Don Scott’s Electric-Cosmos (excellent web-book), PlasmaCosmology.net (articles plus video), Thunderbolts.info (hundreds of articles and pictures of the day), Plasmaresources.com (a good encyclopedia of plasma physics) Books/Movies: Ralph Juergen’s Electric Sun articles. “There Was No Big Bang,” by Eric Lerner. “The Electric Sky” (book and website) Donald Scott “The Electric Universe” Thornhill “Thunderbolts of the Gods” book and movie, Talbott, Thornhill, et al. Official Defender: Any mainstream encyclopedia will give you the rapidly disintegrating official version. If the mainstream always writes from the point of view that the Big Bang is "true," they do it with hardly any conviction. This one's ready to fall. |
No comments:
Post a Comment