Almost 70 years ago, Dr. C. E. R. Bruce offered a new hypothesis about the Sun. Being an electrical researcher, as well as an astronomer, Bruce proposed that the Sun was a discharge phenomenon:
“It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it is an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel. These arcs quickly result in the neutralization of the accumulated space charge in their neighbourhood and go out. They are not therefore stable discharges, but may rather be looked upon as transient sparks. Arcs thus continually appear and disappear. It is this coming and going which accounts for the observed granulation of the solar surface.” (A New Approach in Astrophysics and Cosmogony ByC. E. R. Bruce)
Years later, in 1972, the late Ralph Juergens wrote a series of articles suggesting that the Sun is not an isolated body, but is the most electrically active object in the solar system—the focus of a radial electric field extending outward almost to the next star system. Juergens was the first one to link electricity in the Solar System to the galactic circuit and to theorize that the Sun might have an external power source.
In the electric Sun hypothesis, the Sun is an anode, or positively charged terminal. As previously mentioned, the cathode is an invisible “virtual cathode,” called the heliopause, at the farthest limit of the Sun’s coronal discharge, millions of kilometers from its surface. This is the double layer that isolates the Sun’s plasma cell from the galactic plasma that surrounds it.
In the Electric Universe model, the voltage difference between the Sun and the galaxy occurs across the heliopause boundary sheath. Inside the heliopause the weak, constant electric field centered on the Sun is enough to power the solar discharge. The visible component of the glow discharge occurs above the solar surface in layers.
In the chromosphere, at 500 kilometers above the surface, the coldest temperature exists: 4400 Kelvin. At the top of the chromosphere, 2200 kilometers up, the temperature rises to about 20,000 Kelvin. It then jumps by hundreds of thousands of Kelvin, slowly continuing to rise, eventually reaching 2 million Kelvin in the corona. The Sun’s reverse temperature gradient agrees with the glow discharge model, but contradicts the idea of nuclear fusion.
The discovery that a “solar wind” escapes the Sun at between 400 and 700 kilometers per second was a surprise for the nuclear theory. In a gravity-driven Universe, the Sun’s heat and radiation pressure are insufficient to explain how the particles of the solar wind accelerate past Venus, Earth and the rest of the planets. Since they are not rocket powered particles, no one expected such acceleration.
According to the Electric Sun theory, an electric field focused on the Sun accelerates charged particles: the faster they move, the stronger the field. But as noted, the interplanetary electric field is extremely weak. No instrument would be able to measure the voltage differential across 100 meters, but the solar wind acceleration over tens of millions of kilometers does confirm the Sun’s e-field, enough to sustain a drift current across the Solar System. Within the spatial volume, the implied current is sufficient to power the Sun.
In 1979, Earl Milton composed a paper titled, The Not So Stable Sun in which he wrote:”In order to maintain a stable sheath between the photosphere and the corona a great many electrons must flow downward through the sheath for each ion which passes upward. The solar gas shows an increasing percentage of ionized-to-neutral atoms with altitude. Some of the rising neutral atoms become ionized by collision. Some fall back to the solar surface. The rising ions ascend into the corona where they become the solar wind. The descending gas flows back to the Sun between the granules—in these channels the electrical field is such that ions straying out from the sides of the photospheric tufts flow sunward, and hence the electrons flow outward. The presence of these channels is critical to the maintenance of the solar discharge”
I don’t really know much about the Electric Universe Theory, but it’s a refreshing alternative to the mainstream stuff that is put out there today with it’s invisisble “dark matter” and “dark energy” that make up 95% of the Universe supposedly.
Jan 04, 2013
What do a planet-sized, frigid moon and a small galaxy have in common?
The Magellanic Clouds consist of two dwarf galaxies in proximity to the Milky Way. According to astronomers, they are orbiting our galaxy and might have once been part of it.
The Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) is approximately 200,000 light-years from Earth, as astronomers gauge distance, and is no more than a smudge of light to the naked eye. Both galaxies were first seen by the European explorer Ferdinand Magellan during his global circumnavigation in 1519. The people of Australia have known about their existence for thousands of years, however.
According to astronomers from the Spitzer Space Telescope team, the SMC is interesting because it “is very similar to young galaxies thought to populate the universe billions of years ago.” A lack of heavy elements—20% of those found in the Milky Way, for example—leads then to conclude that its stellar population has not had time to transmute the hydrogen in their thermonuclear cores into nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen, the “elements of life.”
In the false-color image at the top of the page, infrared data from Spitzer’s supercooled detectors is highlighted according to light frequencies: blue reveals what are thought to be older stars, green indicates organic dust streams, composed of “tholins” flowing in and around the SMC, and red relates to hypothetical star-forming dust clouds, or proplyds.
Tholins are large organic molecules found outside our planet that arise when ultraviolet light interacts with smaller molecules. They cannot exist naturally on Earth, because the atmospheric oxygen would quickly destroy them. They can be synthesized in laboratory isolation, however, by sending electric arcs through various combinations of methane and ammonia.
Tholins are primarily a rusty color, which could help to explain the reddish-orange hue of Titan’s atmosphere, where there is almost no oxygen. The Cassini spacecraft, currently in orbit around Saturn, detected “large molecules” when it flew within 800 kilometers of Titan’s surface. The molecules remain unknown, however, because Cassini does not carry the necessary instruments to identify them.
It is not a coincidence that electric arcs are used to create tholins in the laboratory. The Huygens probe found high concentrations of charged particles in the lower atmosphere of Titan, so intense electrical activity could have been responsible for the formation of organic molecules there, as well. Perhaps the reddish-brown “soot” that covers several of Saturn’s moons also contains tholins.
The green-tagged material flowing through the SMC belongs to a structure known as the Magellanic Stream. The Magellanic Stream is composed mainly of hydrogen gas, with tholin compounds mixed in.
Close examination of the Stream’s formation reveals it to be filamentary. As has been noted in past Picture of the Day articles, filaments in gas clouds are a sign of electric currents flowing through dusty plasma. The current flow creates vortex structures that gradually morph into distorted wisps and curlicues of glowing matter. The distorted filaments have been observed in laboratory experiments, as well as in Earth’s aurorae, and other planets, such as Jupiter.
Stars, galaxies, and planets are all moving through plasma in space and are affected by electric currents. Whether great streams of intergalactic plasma, electric arcs in the laboratory, or lightning discharges between planets, the observations all point to electricity as the active agent.
I really don’t know alot about the Electric Universe Theory, but from what little I’ve read about it, it makes more sense than the Standard Model. And this article also makes common sense.
But what do I know, I’m not a physicist, just a person who’s interested in how life and the Universe works!
Hat tip to The Anomalist.
On November 15th 2010 this past Monday, NASA released a finding that the Chandra X-Ray Telescope discovered an infant black hole in our “nearby” galactic neighborhood (50 million light-years).
Black holes are the theoretical “singularity” in which when a super-massive star explodes (goes nova) the remaining matter is so heavy that it “collapses” in upon itself and keeps falling. Forever. Thus creating a black, massive non-volume of space in which light itself can not escape from.
The nice thing about alternative theories is this; most of them make sense and eventually become mainstream when the old order dies off.
That being said, the Electric Universe people over at Thunderbolts.com have come up with their own explanation of what the Chandra Telescope discovered.
And it ain’t “superstitious”:
Zero volume and near-infinite density are incompatible with three-dimensional space.
The Virgo Cluster harbors several galaxies that are listed in the early Messier catalog. Among them are M61, M90, and M100. M100 is particularly interesting to NASA scientists who, in conjunction with the Chandra X-ray Telescope team, called a special press conference on November 15, 2010 in order to announce the discovery of “the youngest black hole ever detected.”
The object thought to be a black hole was identified by an excessively bright X-ray emission that has not varied in brightness for more than 12 years. According to consensus theories, the steady state of the radiation indicates that material is being superheated as it falls into the black hole’s steep gravitational gradient.
SN 1079C, a supernova, is thought to have “given birth” to the black hole because when stars more than 5 times as massive as the Sun “explode,” they are thought to leave behind compacted remains that can fall in on themselves until they attain near-infinite gravity in a zero volume. There are several opinions inherent in NASA’s conclusion to which Electric Universe advocates would object.
First, what is a supernova? As previous Picture of the Day articles have argued, stars do not age and die in the way that conventional understanding proposes. Stars are not globes of hot gas under pressure, they are composed of plasma. Plasma is ionized and is an electrically charged substance. Since it is ionized, it does not behave like a pressurized gas, so shock waves and gravitational instabilities are insufficient when it comes to explaining the birth and death of stars.
As Electric Universe theory states, a supernova is an exploding star, but not in the conventional sense. Rather, it constitutes the explosion of a double layer in plasma. The power comes from external electric currents flowing through vast circuits in space, so the radiation from stars is due to discharges that vary in strength. It is those electric arcs that make up the stellar corona, chromosphere and photosphere of our Sun, for instance.
Supernovae are the result of a stellar “open circuit” in the galactic power supply. The result is the same as sometimes occurs in high-voltage switching yards, with extensive arcing.
In an exploding double layer, the energy of an entire circuit might flow into the explosion, increasing its expansion far from the surface of the star. Radiation from the double layer shines in ultraviolet or X-ray wavelengths, sometimes emitting bursts of gamma rays. It was those effects that should have been considered when SN 1979C was first identified.
Second, what is a black hole? Black holes are theorized to twist space and time so that velocity calculations yield impossible solutions. Matter inside a black hole occupies no volume at all, yet it retains gravitational acceleration so great that not even light can escape its attraction—the hole is “black” because it cannot be detected with optical telescopes.
Several previous Picture of the Day discussions about black holes determined that the language used by astrophysicists is itself problematic, relying on highly speculative explanations. Ambiguous lexical labels such as space/time, multiple universes, singularities, infinite density, and other ideas that are not quantifiable have introduced irony into what should be a realistic investigation.
It is assumed that matter falling into the intense gravity well of a black hole is accelerated and subsequently compressed. Material orbits the black hole at a faster and faster rate as it gradually spins closer to a point several times the mass of our Sun. The X-rays and ultraviolet light emissions are interpreted by astronomers as gas heating up from atomic collisions in the rotating disc.
Finally, hot gas, no matter how fast it moves, is not the principal cause of X-rays. Laboratory experiments most easily produce them by accelerating charged particles through an electric field. No gigantic masses compressed into tiny volumes are necessary; they are easily generated with the proper experiments.
There is no experimental evidence that matter can be compressed to “near-infinite density.” Compression zones (z-pinches) in plasma filaments form plasmoids that can become stars and galaxies. Electricity is responsible for the birth of stars, and when the stellar circuit catastrophically releases its excess energy it appears as gamma ray bursts or X-rays or flares of ultraviolet light.
In the electric star hypothesis, no concentrated gravity from “singularities” is necessary. Classical understanding of electromagnetism reveals that it is more than able to create the phenomena we see, without recourse to the supernatural physics of black holes.
Meanwhile astrophysicists, untrained in the physics of double layers, treat supernovae remnants as a problem in fluid dynamics, using mechanical shockwaves and gravitational pressure to provide the observed energies. It is an approach that Hannes Alfvén warned, more than half a century ago, is doomed to fail.
These guys think black holes are “supernatural” science, you ought to read what they say about “dark” energy and matter! LOL!
The Electric Universe Theory is very intriguing to me for the simple fact that it’s elegant, easy to grasp and can explain many anomalies that occur in Nature.
In fact, I consider it an equal to Einstein’s Gravitic theories that is the mainstream thought today.
Do I think it’s THE theory? No, but I think it’s just as legitimate as other present astronomical are.
But there are skeptibunkers on the InnerTubes that build strawmen to attack the Electric Universe Theory by comparing it with Creationism.
The recent explosion of blogs on the internet now gives a voice to many who would otherwise be ‘nobodys’. A superficially impressive website can be built almost overnight and populated with some self-published papers and a few choice quotes, which can then be used in an attempt to gain notoriety or attention whilst attacking the views of others with whom the author, posing as a well-informed skeptic, disagrees.
One of the many signs of a pseudoskeptic is that they will often attack the person(s) holding a particular view (ad hominem), rather than the view itself. Another tactic frequently employed is to misrepresent the views of their opponents, known as building a ‘strawman’, and then to tear those views down, thus ‘burning the strawman’.
One site of note to this author is the blog of one W. T. (Tom) Bridgman, titled “Dealing With Creationism in Astronomy“. Whilst the title seems self-evident, one has to ask why it is that Bridgman has taken it upon himself to attack Electric Universe (EU) theory with such gusto as has recently been displayed on his blog, when his stated “mission” is to debunk creationism.
EU theory has nothing at all to say about Creationism, Intelligent Design, Atheism or Calethumpianism! Bridgman’s most common response to the question is that some “creationists” cite some EU materials in support of their position even though ‘Big Bang’ theory, to which Bridgman subscribes, has more to offer creationists than the EU does.
Essentially, the big bang has it that everything currently in the universe once occupied a point in space of zero volume and incredible density, and then suddenly it exploded and expanded into what we see today. The parallel with creationism is obvious.
The EU states that the universe is of unknown age and size and that a big bang event is unnecessary and not supported by empirical evidence.
The EU position that the Earth’s surface is relatively new (due to electrical scarring, which has nothing to do with the age of the planet) is used by some Young-Earth Creationists to support their own theory that the Earth is only x years old. So what? No one in the sciences can veto the right to cite their research in support of some other position on some other topic. (emphasis mine)
Bridgman’s other common assertion is that EU theorists use the same tactics as creationists, an assertion which is an attempt at “guilt by association”. A look over his site will reveal numerous accounts of him likening EU theorists to creationists. Serious researchers would do well to assess EU claims on their merits rather than dismissing them due to some alleged yet non-existent association.
Getting back to the topic of pseudoskepticism, allow me to respond to one of Bridgman’s attacks on EU theory, to see how it stacks up. The original post bears the headline “Electric Universe: Real Plasma Physicists Use Mathematical Models!” The all too simple response to that would surely be “yes, we do!”
The pertinent points to which this author offered a response are repeated and addressed below. Here I have added the abbreviations [S] (for strawman) and [A] (for ad hominem) to indicate which tactic is used in his quoted phrases.
One of the problems with Electric Universe (EU) claims is they seem incapable of producing mathematical models that can be used by other researchers to compare the predictions of their theories to other observations and experiments. …
Not true. The mathematics is all there, in the appropriate books and papers to which EU theorists frequently refer. Physics of a Plasma Universe by Anthony L. Peratt, Cosmical Electrodynamics and Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfvén, Gaseous Conductors by J.D. Cobine and many more besides. Bridgman conveniently ignores this fact.
The predictable response to such references is frequently that they are “too old” or irrelevant to today’s physics, and this from those who seem to have an unshakeable faith in the work of Einstein. The irony is palpable.
The article then goes on to destroy the “strawmen” that were built by Tom Bridgman, one by one.
Now I can’t pretend to understand astrophysics or any such esoteric science as such that involves mathematics that only the gods (if they exist) comprehend, but I do my best. And I know that the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland is digging deeper and deeper into these mysteries only to find bigger mysteries, no answers yet.
So I have to assume our theories about Nature aren’t quite up to snuff and we’re asking the wrong questions.
Could we be?
Ahh, here’s some physics stuff I can grok.
The Electric Universe guys never fail to make logic out of gobblety-gook:
Consensus astronomers look at individual points of light and discover the most massive stars. Electric Universe observers look at the entire complex of filaments and discover the characteristic features of a galactic thunderbolt.
“Mass” astronomy posits a relationship between mass and luminosity. By observing a double star system in the cluster shown at the top of the page, astronomers were able to calculate a baseline for the relationship and extrapolate the masses of brighter stars. They found some that were nearly twice as massive as they had thought possible. Although, since theories are often adjusted to explain any observation, failures of expectations cannot be equated with falsifications of theory.
Plasma astronomy posits a relationship between electrical stress and luminosity. Gravity, and consequently mass, is a weak manifestation of electrical stress. In regions that are relatively insulated from the primary effects of electricity (within stellar sheaths, such as the Sun’s heliosphere), gravity will largely determine orbital motions.
However, the mass that is calculated from analysis of the orbits is a result of the charge contained, not of the quantity of matter as is commonly assumed. In an Electric Universe, there are no maximum or minimum sizes for stars.
The objects of interest to plasma astronomers are the helical filaments that give the regions around the clusters their characteristic electrical structure. In the far view (left), arcs of parallel filaments appear to wind around kinked tubes that converge on the cluster, evidence for large plasma discharge channels.
Where channels intersect (center view), the stress increases. Bubbles form (exploding double layers, similar to coronal mass ejections), secondary discharges are induced, and instabilities pinch plasma into stars. The observed large outflow of material, mischaracterized as mass (and misnamed “wind”), is the electrical current flow coursing through the region like a galactic lightning bolt.
Instead of a random scattering of gravitationally collapsing clouds shaped by hot winds, these regions are unitary plasma discharge formations better called galactic thunderbolts.
Hrmmm..”…there are no minimum or maximum sizes for stars.”
We might possibly have found a maximum size for a star, but in a Universe this size, I seriously doubt it.
I wonder what a real small star would look like?
The Electric Universe Theory has had many supporters and detractors. The detractors are mainly mainstream cosmologists and astrophysicists and have for many years tried to debunk the theory, but not usually to any satisfaction and ends with the typical name calling.
As for myself, I find the theory intriguing and very credible. I think in a way, it’s the simplicity and beauty of it that is the draw. And it seems more common sense also.
Here is a pre-release trailer of thunderbolts.info‘s planned release of Episode Two in the “Symbols of an Alien Sky” video production this summer. Part of the theory of the Electric Universe asks, “Why did ancient Babylonians worship Saturn?”
Saturn still figures prominently in esoteric symbolism.
The Cosmic Thunderbolt
In the world of planetary studies, none have been more weird than the Outer Solar System planets; Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
Of these, Uranus, has an internal temperature colder than its’ further brother, Neptune.
Why is that?
Well, maybe the Electric Universe Theory has a possible explanation:
Uranus is the coldest planet in the Solar System at -224° Celsius. The refrigerated dwarf Pluto is colder, but by consensus it has been relegated to the planetesimal category and no longer qualifies as a fully fledged planet.
No one knows why Uranus is so cold—colder than its more remote neighbor Neptune at -214° Celsius. Neptune lies at a mean distance from the Sun of 4,504,300,000 kilometers and Uranus at 2,870,990,000 kilometers, so it receives four times less solar radiation. However, astronomers think that the low temperature anomaly on Uranus could be due to its rotational vector.
Uranus is tipped on its side by 97° past vertical, prompting scientists to speculate that the gas giant was involved in a massive collision sometime in its early history. It is also thought that colliding with that other large object might have released much of its heat, although the precise mechanism for how a collision can cool down a planet remains a mystery.
Uranus does not radiate a great deal of energy in the infrared wavelengths, so its interior is much colder than that of Jupiter, for instance. Based on observations by the Keck telescope, Jupiter’s infrared signature corresponds to an internal temperature of approximately 29727° Celsius, whereas the internal temperature of Uranus is about 4727° Celsius. If the Sun were to disappear tomorrow, Jupiter would still be visible as a faint, reddish glow, but Uranus would be almost invisible against the black background of space.
Like its other gas giant siblings, Uranus has a complex system of rings in orbit with a bevy of satellites. Currently, there are 27 known moons circling the planet, ranging in size from Miranda (470 kilometers in diameter) to Titania (1578 kilometers in diameter). The most unusual thing about the rings and moons is their placement.
Uranus is revolving around the Sun while lying on its side, and its moons and rings are also orbiting along with it in the same orientation. Instead of circling the planet near the plane of the ecliptic, they are inclined from the vertical by 97°, perpendicular to the rest of the Solar System. However, there are several small moons that orbit in the “correct” angle of inclination, crossing from axial pole to axial pole, as well as moving in a retrograde fashion. Why this is so is not known, although it has been suggested that these moons were “captured” by Uranus and did not evolve with it out of a hypothetical nebular cloud.
The rings of Uranus are similar to those around Saturn and Jupiter. Neptune possesses a system of rings as well, but they are thin and only partial, appearing more like ring segments or arcs than a complete set of bracelets. There are at least 13 rings around Uranus, with the potential for more as the refurbished Hubble Space Telescope turns its new eyes on the planet.
The magnetic field generated by Uranus is probably the most unusual aspect of a planet whose structure is dominated by eccentricities. Unlike Saturn, whose magnetic poles are aligned almost exactly with its axial poles, or Jupiter, whose field is offset from vertical by a mere 10°, the magnetic poles of Uranus are offset at a slant from its rotational axis by 60°. Neptune exhibits a similar field offset, with the majority of the field strength concentrated in one hemisphere—like Uranus.
Why Jupiter and Saturn have intense magnetic fields, while Uranus and Neptune have weak fields is not understood by conventional astronomers or by Electric Universe theorists. In the Electric Universe model, however, there is no dependence on internal composition, such as an iron core acting as a dynamo, or a compressed core of metallic hydrogen creating the field through rapid rotation. What is most likely occurring is that the rapid rotation of charged particles in the plasma making up the giant planets is creating a powerful surge of electromagnetic energy. It is common knowledge that a rotating electric current will produce a magnetic field.
All four gas giant planets spin at enormous velocities for their sizes. Uranus is 51120 kilometers in diameter, yet it completes one rotation in just under 18 hours. Recently, a current sheet was found connecting Uranus with its moon Miranda, feeding current into the auroral field, proving that there is an electric circuit within the Uranian system. In fact, the magnetosphere of Uranus extends out beyond its farthest moon and is wide enough to encompass its entire ring system.
It is to be hoped that outlining the problems and anomalies associated with one of the coldest of the cold places in existence will motivate more interest and more investigation. We have made little attempt to explain what is found on Uranus because explanations have yet to be forthcoming—electrical conditions usually require in situ measurements. So far, only one space probe has visited Uranus, and the Earth-based telescopes on the ground and in orbit have just recently been upgraded to the point where sharper images can be synthesized. We can only wait for more data.
I find the Electric Universe Theory very compelling in explaining certain anomalies that elude the standard model explanations, which usually include adding such nebulous things as dark energy/matter.
Theories in my view that are just as plausible as the ‘aether’ was in the 19th Century.
When scientists released info about preliminary results from the Kepler telescope satellite a couple of days ago, one mystery was a discovery of an object that affected the surface of its parent star to the point that it’s suspected the object is hotter than the star.
That’s quite a discovery. Many theories are floating around about this, but the main one is that the object is heavier, or denser materially than the star. As the object orbits its sun, it’s causing ripples across its surface.
Well, hogwash say the proponents of the Electric Universe Theory.
They say the object is the result of stellar fissioning:
On March 7, 2009, NASA launched the Kepler Space Telescope on a three and a half year mission designed to search for planets revolving around other stars. Astronomers have been investigating the possibility that there are other stellar families outside of the Solar System for many years, but Earth-based telescopes have been able to detect only gas giants that are Jupiter-sized or larger. Kepler was built to find planets that are similar in size to Earth.
In 1992, radio astronomers found a pair of objects in orbit around PSR B1257+12, a radio pulsar 980 light-years away, as astronomers reckon distance. Aleksander Wolszczan and Dale Frail used a “radial velocity” technique to measure shifts in the pulsar’s radio frequency, inferring the existence of dense bodies “tugging” on the star.
Other extrasolar bodies were found by teams such as those at the Lick Observatory, headed up by Geoff Marcy. Marcy is credited with discovering 70 new planets using a combination of astrometry, calculating stellar positional shifts caused by a planet’s gravitational pull, and radial velocity measurements. That information is also used to determine the planetary masses and orbits.
Kepler is using the “transit method” to find remote worlds. By observing a star’s brightness, the telescope can see when a planet passes in front of the stellar disc because there will be a reduction in the light. Theoretically, that slight dimming can be used to deduce the size of the object occluding the star. With repeated observations, the transit interval can allude to the planet’s orbital duration.
Currently, the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia lists 417 planets outside of the Solar System.
Recently, Kepler scientists announced that they have found five potentially new planets around various stars. Each of them are possessed of strange characteristics (one has the apparent density of Styrofoam), but the strangest of all is that two of them are incredibly hot—hotter than their parent stars. According to mission team members they have no idea what they could be. They are too hot to be planets, but too small to be stars.
One of the “mysterious” new objects is KOI 74b, with a temperature of 39,000 Celsius, while its stellar host is only 9400 Celsius. This cannot be explained with consensus theories: why would a planet be hotter than a star? That is, if it is a planet. However, because of its relatively small size—about as large as Jupiter—it is far too small for fusion fires to be burning there.
Another bizarre object, this time about as large as Neptune, with a temperature near 15,000 Celsius, is in such close proximity to its star that it completes one revolution in just over five days. Are these new types of celestial object, or are they simply conforming to the characteristics of plasma double layers, and the Electric Star theory?
Intense magnetic fields have been detected in space. Those fields are thought to be generated by electric currents flowing through and around galaxies along light-years long “transmission lines” called Birkeland current filaments. Magnetic forces constrict the filaments, twisting them around each other and forming “z-pinch” compression zones. The pinch effect is far more powerful than gravity when it comes to concentrating matter. Stars are formed when z-pinch effects crush plasma into rotating spheres of electric charge. This concept has been elucidated many times in these pages.
In a previous Picture of the Day article, the Electric Star theory was proposed as a way to deal with the then “puzzling” discovery of yellow, super-giant stars orbiting close to one another in the Holmberg IX galaxy. The conventional view of luminosity versus spectral class was shown to be overturned by the theory’s premise. The theory also predicts that binary star systems at every stage of evolution and luminosity should exist.
The Electric Star theory states that stellar fissioning will occur if a star is under great stress because of excess current flow from the galactic generator. A blue-white star might explosively split into two or more daughter stars if the input current passes a critical threshold. In so doing, the surface area increases, resulting in a decrease in current density. The two (or more) new stars will experience a reduction in luminosity and appear to be “older” as conventional theories of stellar evolution discuss age. The electric currents flowing between the new stars might also be interpreted as heat.
Perhaps what the Kepler mission has done is help to confirm the Electric Star theory by providing data that supports stellar fissioning.
Kepler actually discovered five objects; Kepler 4b, 5b, 6b, 7b and 8b. It is Kepler 7b that is the mystery object.
This will continue to be a mystery until we build interstellar probes to visit this object, or more likely, more powerful telescopes to investigate it further.
Kepler is just beginning its investigations and these planets are just the “calibrations” of its equipment. More and better mysteries are sure to follow!
Physicist Wal Thornhill of Electric Universe fame laments on the terrible condition science is in now-a-days as it takes on the mantle of religion, mainly when it comes to Anthropogenic Climate Change:
The Global Warming circus in Copenhagen was politics driven by a consensus that, by definition, has nothing to do with science. The apocalyptic nonsense that opened the meeting highlighted that fact. How many who attended or demonstrated at the meeting actually understand the (disputed) scientific grounds for the hysteria? Meanwhile, leading science journals allow skeptics of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to be labelled “deniers” and refuse them the right of reply. It is doctrinaire denouncement, not science. It is the journal editors who are denying the scientific method by censoring debate. It is they who are peddling ideology.
Despite the glossy media image, modern science is a mess. When the fundamental concepts are false, technological progress merely provides science with a more efficient means for going backwards. At the same time, government and corporate funding promotes the rampant disease of specialism and fosters politicization of science with the inevitable warring factions and religious fervor.
“Science has become religion! ..although religion may have borrowed some of the jargon of science, science, more importantly, has adopted the methods of religion. This is the worst of both worlds.” —Halton Arp
There have been several warm climatic periods documented in history that had nothing to do with human activity. There seems to be evidence that the Earth has actually been cooling since 2001, in line with reduced solar activity. So it would be more realistic to consider climate change as a normal phenomenon and to plan accordingly because despite all of the hoopla in the media, modern science is founded on surprising ignorance. An iconoclastic view suggests the following:
— cosmologists have been misled by theoretical physicists who don’t understand gravity, which forms the basis of the big bang theory. Imaginary ‘dark matter,’ ‘dark energy,’ and black holes have been added to make models of galaxies and star birth appear to work. When all else fails, mysterious magnetic fields are invoked. The bottom line is that cosmologists presently have no real understanding of the universe;
— astrophysicists don’t understand stars because they steadfastly ignore plasma discharge phenomena;
— particle physicists don’t understand matter or its resonant electrical interactions. They prefer to invent imaginary particles;
— geologists have been misled by astronomers about Earth’s history;
— biologists have had no practical help from theoretical physicists so they don’t understand what might constitute the ‘mind-body connection’ or ‘the spark of life;’
— and climate scientists have been misled by astronomers and astrophysicists so they have no real concept of recent Earth history in the solar system and they don’t understand the real source of lightning and the electrical input to weather systems. For example, the major city in northern Australia, Darwin, was utterly destroyed in tropical cyclone ‘Tracy’ in 1974. The catastrophe was described in part, “At 3am, the eye of the cyclone passed over Darwin, bringing an eerie stillness. There was a strange light, a diffuse lightning, like St. Elmo’s fire.” There was no solar energy being supplied to the 150km per hour winds at 3 in the morning. “A diffuse lightning” is an apt description of the slow electrical discharge (distinct from impulsive lightning) that drives all rotary storms and influences weather patterns. That is why the electrically hyperactive gas giant planets have overwhelmingly violent storms while receiving very little solar energy.
Yet with these unacknowledged shortcomings we have bookshelves filled with textbooks, science journals and PhD theses, mostly unread, that would stretch to the Moon, fostering the impression that we understand most things. And the public is assailed with documentaries that breathlessly deliver and repeat fashionable science fiction as fact. How can this be?
Science has left its classical and philosophical roots, rather like surrealist art departed from realism. The analogy is fitting. It is demonstrated by the fondness for expressing theoretical models in artists impressions, computer animations and aesthetic terms. The artist/philosopher Miles Mathis is of the opinion that “ Science has become just like Modern Art. The contemporary artist and the contemporary physicist look at the world in much the same way. The past means nothing. They gravitate to novelty as the ultimate distinction, in and of itself. They do this because novelty is the surest guarantee of recognition.” So why does the media not have science critics alongside art critics? Has science become sacrosanct? Bluntly, the answer is yes. No science reporter wants to have the portcullises lowered at the academic bastions. Happily, the Internet allows the curious to circumvent such censorship.
So far, the Internet is mostly censorless, except for certain nations where Google has helped their government authorities censor content. Plus you can only believe about 50% what you read. It takes effort to winnow wheat from the chaff at times.
But Thornhill makes valid points in that science has become dogmatic to the point of being a religion that nobody dares question, especially when it comes to anthropogenic climate change.
Studying Fortean subjects sometimes mean taking on the status quo.
I have been interested in all things outer space for over forty years and one of the most controversial subjects I have studied is the Electric Universe Theory.
And the foremost website out there for proponents of the theory is Thunderbolts.info:
Comets are said to be composed of “dusty ices.” Why have crystalline structures that require high temperatures been found in them?NASA scientists launched the Stardust mission on February 7, 1999. Its primary task was to collect dust particles from the coma of comet Wild 2 and then return to Earth. Fuel savings meant that the capsule required a gravity boost, so it returned to Earth orbit from deep space after almost two years of travel time. As it flew by the home planet, it was accelerated back out to its aphelion, 400 million kilometers from the Sun, reaching a distance greater than any other solar-powered spacecraft.
So that mission specialists could test the camera operation and other instrument packages, Stardust briefly encountered the 4-kilometer asteroid Annefrank on November 2, 2002 at a distance of 3000 kilometers while moving at 7 kilometers per second. Although the dust collectors on board were open to space, no material collection was expected in the vicinity and none was achieved.
After a five year journey, Stardust finally intersected Wild 2’s orbit on January 2, 2004, passing through its coma at the metaphorical hair’s breadth distance of 240 kilometers. The aerogel dust-capture system worked perfectly, scooping up fine bits of rock and trapping them inside for their return journey to Earth on January 15, 2006.
Although the spacecraft traveled more than a billion kilometers over a 7 year time span, the mothership successfully released its payload and the parachutes deployed, cushioning the precious cargo for a soft landing in the Utah desert. The aerogel was delivered to a thrilled team of researchers for analysis. That’s when the surprise and shock began.
Minerals such as anorthite and forsterite were found embedded in the aerogel—compounds that form only at extremely high temperatures—along with olivine. Perplexed scientists wondered how an object that was supposed to be a remnant from the early nebular cloud out of which the Solar System condensed, and that should have been kept in frozen hibernation in a theoretical “Oort cloud” billions of kilometers from the Sun, could exhibit crystalline structures that would require a blast furnace to create.
Stardust mission team leader Donald Brownlee said at the time, “In the coldest part of the solar system we’ve found samples that formed at extremely high temperatures.”
Now, according to a recent paper in the science journal Nature, a mechanism by which such high temperature crystals might form has been announced. A team led by Attila Juhász from the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy examined the light emitted by EX Lupi, thought to be a young star in the constellation Lupus. EX Lupi is a variable star, meaning it periodically brightens over a several month period. After one energetic pulse in 2008, the infrared spectral signature of the star seemed to indicate that some of the orbiting dust had been changed from a glasslike substance to one that is similar to what was seen in the spectrum of comet Wild 2: high temperature crystals.
The unfortunate part of the observation is the conclusion that was reached. Among astrophysicists, the consensus opinion is that stars like EX Lupi undergo energetic eruptions because they gravitationally drag material from their surroundings and accumulate it on their surfaces. The added mass compresses to the point where it explodes in a thermonuclear reaction and the stars “go nova.” Note that this is quite different from a supernova explosion where a star casts off its outer layers due to a disruption in its hypothetical core fusion reactions.
The supposed nova on EX Lupi is said to have heated the glasslike matter around the star until it became “thermally annealed” and changed its physical structure into harder crystals like the forsterite discovered in the coma of Wild 2. In other words, it is the old standby of gravity, heat, and shock waves that are responsible for what is observed.
Electric Universe advocates see things differently. Stars and comets share common characteristics because they are both born of similar parentage. Stars are nodes in vast electrical circuits connected by Birkeland current filaments within galaxies. Planets, moons, asteroids, and comets are electrically charged and exist within a radial electric current that surrounds stars like our own Sun.
Comets, specifically, have nothing to do with an ancient nebular cloud of cold gas and dust that became gravitationally unstable and collapsed into the Solar System of today. Comets and their asteroid sisters are relative newcomers to the solar family and might have been blasted out of larger bodies by tremendously powerful electric discharges in the recent past. They are not “snowballs” or blobs of muddy slush, they are solid, rocky, cratered, electrically charged objects.
When Stardust arrived at Wild 2, it found that the coma contained the “signature” of water vapor, although the distribution was anomalous. The farther from the surface of the comet, the greater the amount of vapor, surely a result that is diametrically opposed to the theoretical model of sublimating ices jetting out from the nucleus. So what was the “water vapor?”
Whatever water or hydroxyl compounds that can be found in cometary comas is created there because ionized oxygen from the comet reacts with hydrogen ions streaming out from the Sun. No “jets” of water vapor spew from comets, and no icy plains have ever been observed. It is electric effects that are seen—discharges and arcs form the comet phenomena.
Similarly, stars do not oscillate in brightness or energy output because they are accumulating excess mass. They do so because they are experiencing an increased electrical input from the galaxy. The electric current flowing into the star causes it to change its discharge behavior. It might go from a stable and (what is for it) “normal” glow mode to a more intense arc mode state. The greater current flow might cause z-pinch regions around the star where its plasma could then be reformed into different chemical compounds. It is more likely that processes involving plasma are responsible for the changes in stellar spectrograms.
So, in conclusion, the Sun and comets are part of one electrically active circuit that is occupied by many different regions of charge distribution. The Sun receives its power from the protean electric generator we call the Milky Way. Accordingly, planets and other bodies exist within a flow of charged particles constantly streaming from the Sun. As any first year electrical engineering student knows, a stream of charged particles is an electric current.
I find the similarity between the moon Phoebe and Comet Wild 2 very intriguing.
Could the Electric Universe Theory be more credible than the mainstream is willing to admit?
As always, ol’ Dad is taking the holiday off, family always takes precedence at times like this.
Have a Happy Christmas, Yuletide, Winter Solstice, Kwanza or whatever you choose to call it! See ya next week!