Electric Universe Revisited - Birkeland Gets The Last Laugh

[Silence]

Hi Richard - I figured you might appreciate a little distraction from the running dialogue going on in the other threads. I check in at the Thunderbolts.info site every few days to see if they have released anything new and came across these three videos yesterday. It appears the mainstream is starting to make "discoveries" that the Electric Universe proponents have been talking about for years. Maybe they are seen as 'discoveries' because they are finding things they weren't looking for? https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/04/18/plasma-jets-and-the-electric-earth-space-news/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU74kAmONQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT3DWZBKoRk

[Unregistered]

Silence here posting from the employee computer before work - Another acknowledgement of electric forces playing a role in planetary geology features that were previously unexplained- https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/04/25/22528/

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Silence here posting from the employee computer before work - Another acknowledgement of electric forces playing a role in planetary geology features that were previously unexplained- https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/04/25/22528/
Hey there Silence,

I don't understand why you would waste time with fringe science if you haven't mastered real science yet? If you don't know real science, how can you hope to evaluate the validity of the fringe science?

All the best,

Richard

[Unregistered]

Hi Richard, From the constant litany of press releases that talk of scientists being ""shocked", surprised", and "needing to go back to the drawing board", it seems they haven't mastered science either. Did you watch the three videos in the first post? The first shows their surprise at the size of the electric fields associated with the jets of super-heated plasma high in our atmosphere. They are describing something Kristian Birkeland predicted over 100 years ago, and got laughed at for. The second video details their surprise at finding new stars in supposedly old clusters. And the third details a solar flare that dragged a sun spot around a little. According to standard theory that is equivalent in their own words to the tail wagging the dog. If you don't want to "waste" too much time run the vids at 2x speed with the subtitles on. I found them interesting.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard, From the constant litany of press releases that talk of scientists being ""shocked", surprised", and "needing to go back to the drawing board", it seems they haven't mastered science either.

Hey there Silence,

I think you missed my point. The fact that the experts don't have everything figured out does not mean they are the same as amateurs who know nothing.

The fact that they don't know everything does not mean they have mastered nothing, and it certainly does not give any credence of any kind to cranks on the fringe, which is what the electric universe folks seem like.

So let me repeat my question: Why do you waste time pursuing fringe science when you haven't mastered established science sufficiently to judge between the two?



Did you watch the three videos in the first post? The first shows their surprise at the size of the electric fields associated with the jets of super-heated plasma high in our atmosphere. They are describing something Kristian Birkeland predicted over 100 years ago, and got laughed at for. The second video details their surprise at finding new stars in supposedly old clusters. And the third details a solar flare that dragged a sun spot around a little. According to standard theory that is equivalent in their own words to the tail wagging the dog. If you don't want to "waste" too much time run the vids at 2x speed with the subtitles on. I found them interesting.
No, I haven't watched those particular videos yet. I've watched others that they made, and have reviewed some of their writings. The thing is, they present themselves like cranks who reject all science without any understanding. That's not how science progresses. When Einstein's Relatively replaced Newton's Mechanics, it didn't mean that everything about Newton's theory was wrong. On the contrary, it showed that Newton's theory was low-velocity approximation of Einstein's theory. This is as it must be, because Newton's theory has been shown to work over a vast range of phenomena.

Is this what the electric universe people are doing? Is there theory consistent with established observations? Can it account for all the observations that have already been made and verified?

I'll take a look at the videos and let you know what I think.

Great chatting,

Richard

:sunny:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Silence here posting from the employee computer before work - Another acknowledgement of electric forces playing a role in planetary geology features that were previously unexplained- https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/04/25/22528/
I watched that video. It made no sense at all. After giving a bunch of examples of phenomena that established scientists say may be caused by electricity, it ended by saying that "all the space sciences need to recognize the undeniable significance of electricity in nature." That's just nuts. All scientists recognize electromagnetism as one of the four fundamental forces in nature. And the examples given in the video prove that point.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard - I figured you might appreciate a little distraction from the running dialogue going on in the other threads. I check in at the Thunderbolts.info site every few days to see if they have released anything new and came across these three videos yesterday. It appears the mainstream is starting to make "discoveries" that the Electric Universe proponents have been talking about for years. Maybe they are seen as 'discoveries' because they are finding things they weren't looking for? https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/04/18/plasma-jets-and-the-electric-earth-space-news/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU74kAmONQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT3DWZBKoRk
I just watched the first of the three links, and again, I get the impression that the proponents of the "electric universe" are cranks who imagine there is some great conspiracy against their "discoveries." They sound like religious cult members, not scientists. Now don't get me wrong, I know that scientists are human and so have biases like everyone else, and so have mocked new ideas, such as plate tectonics, before being forced to accept them by the evidence. But that's a far cry from a massive conspiracy. If the electric universe folks have real evidence, they should present it in real scientific papers and quit with the videos that make them sound like nuts.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard - I figured you might appreciate a little distraction from the running dialogue going on in the other threads. I check in at the Thunderbolts.info site every few days to see if they have released anything new and came across these three videos yesterday. It appears the mainstream is starting to make "discoveries" that the Electric Universe proponents have been talking about for years. Maybe they are seen as 'discoveries' because they are finding things they weren't looking for? https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/04/18/plasma-jets-and-the-electric-earth-space-news/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU74kAmONQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT3DWZBKoRk

Here's a list of claims made by various "Electric Universe" proponents that I found on this page (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe):

Claims


Einstein (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Einstein)'s postulates are wrong.[8] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe#cite_note-Thornhill-7)
General relativity (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/General_relativity) (GR) is wrong.[9] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe#cite_note-8)
The Universe is not expanding (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Expanding_universe).[10] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe#cite_note-9)
The electric force travels faster than the speed of light (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Speed_of_light) with near-infinite velocity.[8] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe#cite_note-Thornhill-7)
Gravity has two poles like a bar magnet; dipole gravity.[11] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe#cite_note-10)
A plenum of neutrinos (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neutrino) forms an all-pervasive aether.[8] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe#cite_note-Thornhill-7)
Planets (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Planet) give birth to comets (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Comet).[12] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe#cite_note-11)
Stars (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Star) do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.[13] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe#cite_note-12)
Impact craters on Venus (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Venus), Mars (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mars) and the Moon (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon) are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges.[14] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe#cite_note-13) The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon) on Earth.[15] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe#cite_note-14)
The Sun (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sun) is negatively charged, and the solar wind is positively charged ? the two systems forming a giant capacitor (this is James McCanney (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_McCanney)'s particular erroneous belief.)[citation needed (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Help:References)]
EU proponents from the Thunderbolts Project claim to have predicted the natures of Pluto (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pluto) and Comet 67P more accurately than NASA (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NASA) or ESA.[16] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe#cite_note-15)[17] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe#cite_note-16)


It would be happy to discuss these with you if you are actually interested in evaluating the validity of their claims. For example, are you familiar with the various ways that General Relativity has been verified? How do you explain gravitational lensing? How do you explain time dilation that is used to make GPS more accurate? What about the perihelion of Mercury?

[Silence]

I watched that video. It made no sense at all. After giving a bunch of examples of phenomena that established scientists say may be caused by electricity, it ended by saying that "all the space sciences need to recognize the undeniable significance of electricity in nature." That's just nuts. All scientists recognize electromagnetism as one of the four fundamental forces in nature. And the examples given in the video prove that point.

The main point that the T-Bolts folks are making in this video is that it is only very recently that the mainstream scientific community has acknowledged electricity as playing a major role in forming geological features that previously had been given very speculative kinetic explanations. Electric Universe proponents have been talking about this stuff for years. If, as you claim, scientists were and are so cognizant of the role of electromagnetism in nature, why is a proposal involving electro-static formation of dunes on Titan made by some of these scientists described as "shocking"? (found at the :50 mark) It is shocking because the idea of electrical forces playing a major role in space was put on the sidelines a long time ago and made the towel boy for the gravity boys on the football team, thanks in large part to Mr. Chapman.

In the segment 1:59 - 2:32, they are pointing out that the article seemed to suggest that winds moved the particles to start with and that static electricity caused them to stick together and make unexpected formations. So kinetics is again playing the major role with electricity as the sidekick. The video points out the fact that the article did not mention the possibility that the winds themselves may be electrically driven i.e. "ionic winds" (demonstrated at 2:27). The T-Bolts group have made a lot of predictions in the past that electricity will one day be found to play a much larger role than the "accompanying side-effect" to kinetic forces that it is now given when describing many weather phenomena like thunderstorm clouds, hurricanes, and dust devils. They make similar predictions about the "ice geysers" on Enceladus and the volcanoes on Io that moved several kilometers in a few months.

I don't think that the EU folks are paranoid or over-reacting at all. In the first video link on my opening post Donald Scott is pointing out that the scientists who discovered the Birkeland currents causing super-heated, supersonic jets of plasma in our atmosphere are either ignorant of Hannes Alfven, Anthony Peratt and especially Stig Lindquist (who developed a model back in 1950 that predicts most of the "discoveries" that the SWARM scientists have recently claimed), or they purposely refused to acknowledge that the work these folks did has any relevance in predicting their discoveries. Mr. Scott does not follow their example and gives credit where it is due (2:50 - 3:10). He also points out that he had a paper published in 2015 that elaborates on Lindquist's model of Birkeland current structure and predicted the counter-rotation that the SWARM mission's discovery implies, but that they fail to mention, either because they weren't looking for it or because they don't know how to explain it. It is also possible that they don't like the implication that Mr Scott proposes for counter-rotating field-aligned currents, that being their ability to carry large amounts of current, remain coherent and resist diffusion for huge distances. Mr. Scott claims that a lot of what the mainstream calls "jets" (implying kinetics) shooting out of objects in space are really field aligned Birkeland currents. On the previous thread I did on the EU theory, I posted a picture of a series of filaments with stars forming at regular intervals on them, and that were many, many light years long and uniform in width for their whole length. The scientists who made this discovery said the uniform width over that kind of distance demands an explanation, and the one offered was "shock waves from exploding super-novas", which according to my cave-man scientific brain would seem to produce curves and rounded features where these filaments changed direction. Instead the picture showed these filaments looking more like lightning bolts, with sharp turns in direction, sometimes at very acute angles. Not much like one would expect from an explosion. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that the terminology like "jets" and "shock-waves" used in scientific press releases naturally brings to mind kinetic forces, not electrical. Electricity is a wierd thing, people are fascinated by it and at the same time afraid of it too. I wonder if anyone has ever studied what effect this may have had on the history of electricity in science?

[L67]

The main point that the T-Bolts folks are making in this video is that it is only very recently that the mainstream scientific community has acknowledged electricity as playing a major role in forming geological features that previously had been given very speculative kinetic explanations. Electric Universe proponents have been talking about this stuff for years.

If, as you claim, scientists were and are so cognizant of the role of electromagnetism in nature, why is a proposal involving electro-static formation of dunes on Titan made by some of these scientists described as "shocking"? (found at the :50 mark) It is shocking because the idea of electrical forces playing a major role in space was put on the sidelines a long time ago and made the towel boy for the gravity boys on the football team, thanks in large part to Mr. Chapman.





This is patently FALSE! You have been grossly misled. You should have skipped the Electric Universe woo-woo and went straight to the source. The video you posted did nothing other than quote mine the Scientific American article.

Your video claims this at .53. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGo2_ru9R5A) Now, some scientists are suggesting a shocking solution to these backward-facing drifts: They may be sculpted not only by wind, but also by electrostatic forces.

Here is the article in question. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-sand-how-titans-dunes-got-their-weird-shapes/



These claims have been KNOWN for over a decade by the scientific community. From the same article.


The idea that Titan possesses electrified sand is not exactly new, having appeared for more than a decade in scientific literature and elsewhere. Consider this whimsical snippet from a 2007 Titan-themed poem by study co-author Mike Malaska, a scientist in the Planetary Ices Group at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory: ?Methane sky;
ethane drizzle.
Surface made of organic shizzle.
Dunes of plastic;
it?s fantastic.
Let?s get sticky
and electrostatic.? But no one had robustly tested the idea.

But other experts say there could be other explanations. From the same article.

Other experts caution, however, that it is too soon to conclude Titan?s sands are electrified based solely on remote images of dunes and Earthbound laboratory experiments. According to Jani Radebaugh, a planetary scientist at Brigham Young University who was not involved in the study, these results are notable because they represent a big step forward in studying the Saturnian moon?s surface. ?Appealing to electrostatic charging on grains complicates things,? Radebaugh says. ?I suspect this might not be any more complicated than our just not having the models right?that surface winds just blow in the opposite direction than we think. But getting in the lab and working with these exotic materials could well be a stepping-stone to better understanding processes on Titan.?

Ralph Lorenz, a planetary scientist at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory who was also not part of the research, agrees that more work is needed before we understand Titan?s mysteries. ?Electrostatic charging could be quite important in ultimately controlling how sand moves on Titan, particularly with regard to relations between dune orientation and [winds],? he says. Even so, he says, there are other explanations for the backward-facing dunes, largely contingent on what exactly they are made of and the speed and directionality of Titan?s winds. ?To know what wind you need to make sand move on Titan, you really need to go there,? Lorenz says.







In the segment 1:59 - 2:32, they are pointing out that the article seemed to suggest that winds moved the particles to start with and that static electricity caused them to stick together and make unexpected formations. So kinetics is again playing the major role with electricity as the sidekick. The video points out the fact that the article did not mention the possibility that the winds themselves may be electrically driven i.e. "ionic winds" (demonstrated at 2:27). The T-Bolts group have made a lot of predictions in the past that electricity will one day be found to play a much larger role than the "accompanying side-effect" to kinetic forces that it is now given when describing many weather phenomena like thunderstorm clouds, hurricanes, and dust devils. They make similar predictions about the "ice geysers" on Enceladus and the volcanoes on Io that moved several kilometers in a few months.


Their predictions have no explanatory power. It's fine to say that our current models are flawed. Shouldn't their predicted models be able to explain everything our current models do based on the data we have? And shouldn't their models be adaptable as new data is discovered? I think so. This is one of the major reasons the Electric Universe theory is not taken seriously. There are no predictive models that account for ALL the data we do have.


I don't think that the EU folks are paranoid or over-reacting at all. In the first video link on my opening post Donald Scott is pointing out that the scientists who discovered the Birkeland currents causing super-heated, supersonic jets of plasma in our atmosphere are either ignorant of Hannes Alfven, Anthony Peratt and especially Stig Lindquist (who developed a model back in 1950 that predicts most of the "discoveries" that the SWARM scientists have recently claimed), or they purposely refused to acknowledge that the work these folks did has any relevance in predicting their discoveries.

That is not true at all. Credible people like Hannes Alfven did NOT subscribe to the EU quackery. Crackpots have taken bits of his work to propose their own narrative backed by scanty evidence.

Here is thorough 48 page pulverizing of Donald Scott's work. http://web.archive.org/web/20150416003346/http://www.theplasmaverse.com/pdfs/the-electic-sky-book-by-donaldescott-review-discussion-against.pdf

Here was Don Scott's weak rebuttal. http://electric-cosmos.org/RebutTB.pdf

Where are all of Scott's peer reviewed papers proving his claims?

[Unregistered]

There is a lot of old material floating about that is obviously based on ignorance. Recent findings and explanations to do with magnetism in the last few words would support the electric universe.

In order to explain the electric universe, let the boffins on this forum first answer the two following questions:-

1. What is a Field?

2. What is magnetism?


Unless the first question is answered, there is no point trying to answer the second question.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

There is a lot of old material floating about that is obviously based on ignorance. Recent findings and explanations to do with magnetism in the last few words would support the electric universe.

In order to explain the electric universe, let the boffins on this forum first answer the two following questions:-

1. What is a Field?

2. What is magnetism?


Unless the first question is answered, there is no point trying to answer the second question.
Definitions are indeed important. Case in point: I had never heard the term "boffin" before, so I looked it up and found that it is a British term basically equivalent to the American "geek". Webster's defines it as "a scientific expert, especially one involved in technical research."

As for the other two terms, field and magnetism, I am quite familiar with their technical definitions since I am indeed a "boffin" with degrees in physics and mathematics.

Of course, there are different kinds of answers to "what is" type of questions. It is true that the magnetic field is the field that exerts a magnetic force, but that doesn't tell us what "magnetism" IS in an ontological sense. Most of those kinds of questions can never be answered. Like "What is electricity?" or "What is energy?". Energy can be defined as something that can be measured, but who can say what it "is" in an ontological sense?

[Silence]

This is patently FALSE! You have been grossly misled. You should have skipped the Electric Universe woo-woo and went straight to the source. The video you posted did nothing other than quote mine the Scientific American article.

Your video claims this at .53. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGo2_ru9R5A) Now, some scientists are suggesting a shocking solution to these backward-facing drifts: They may be sculpted not only by wind, but also by electrostatic forces.

Here is the article in question. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-sand-how-titans-dunes-got-their-weird-shapes/



These claims have been KNOWN for over a decade by the scientific community. From the same article.


The idea that Titan possesses electrified sand is not exactly new, having appeared for more than a decade in scientific literature and elsewhere. Consider this whimsical snippet from a 2007 Titan-themed poem by study co-author Mike Malaska, a scientist in the Planetary Ices Group at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory: ?Methane sky;
ethane drizzle.
Surface made of organic shizzle.
Dunes of plastic;
it?s fantastic.
Let?s get sticky
and electrostatic.? But no one had robustly tested the idea.

But other experts say there could be other explanations. From the same article.

Other experts caution, however, that it is too soon to conclude Titan?s sands are electrified based solely on remote images of dunes and Earthbound laboratory experiments. According to Jani Radebaugh, a planetary scientist at Brigham Young University who was not involved in the study, these results are notable because they represent a big step forward in studying the Saturnian moon?s surface. ?Appealing to electrostatic charging on grains complicates things,? Radebaugh says. ?I suspect this might not be any more complicated than our just not having the models right?that surface winds just blow in the opposite direction than we think. But getting in the lab and working with these exotic materials could well be a stepping-stone to better understanding processes on Titan.?

Ralph Lorenz, a planetary scientist at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory who was also not part of the research, agrees that more work is needed before we understand Titan?s mysteries. ?Electrostatic charging could be quite important in ultimately controlling how sand moves on Titan, particularly with regard to relations between dune orientation and [winds],? he says. Even so, he says, there are other explanations for the backward-facing dunes, largely contingent on what exactly they are made of and the speed and directionality of Titan?s winds. ?To know what wind you need to make sand move on Titan, you really need to go there,? Lorenz says.









Their predictions have no explanatory power. It's fine to say that our current models are flawed. Shouldn't their predicted models be able to explain everything our current models do based on the data we have? And shouldn't their models be adaptable as new data is discovered? I think so. This is one of the major reasons the Electric Universe theory is not taken seriously. There are no predictive models that account for ALL the data we do have.



That is not true at all. Credible people like Hannes Alfven did NOT subscribe to the EU quackery. Crackpots have taken bits of his work to propose their own narrative backed by scanty evidence.

Here is thorough 48 page pulverizing of Donald Scott's work. http://web.archive.org/web/20150416003346/http://www.theplasmaverse.com/pdfs/the-electic-sky-book-by-donaldescott-review-discussion-against.pdf

Here was Don Scott's weak rebuttal. http://electric-cosmos.org/RebutTB.pdf

Where are all of Scott's peer reviewed papers proving his claims?


It wasn't the "woo-woo" of Electric Universe proponents that made me think the idea of static electricity could play a role in Titan's sand dunes was recent, it was the April 3rd Scientific American article that called it "shocking" when some scientists actually put forth the idea in a paper for Nature Geoscience last March. If they have known about the possibility for 10 years, why call it "shocking" when someone wants to seriously consider it? In a roundabout way, the fact that it took ten years for someone to do this reinforces my point that it is only recently that electricity has begun to be seriously considered for things that previously were the domain of kinetics. I wonder if they would further consider the possibility that electricity is also driving the winds that blow the sand around?


Until the mainstream model either has a major meltdown from a single failure or dies a slow death from a thousand "puzzling" anomalies, I doubt that Professor Scott will get any peer reviews from recognized mainstream sources. I read the "pulverizing" article critiquing Mr. Scott's book, along with Mr. Scott's "weak" rebuttal. In my opinion, Mr. Bridgman is evaluating and discounting things that Mr. Scott has proposed from within a mainstream paradigm that is held by him (Bridgman) and most of its defenders as unassailable, since it has had so much success throughout the years. This success has given the mainstream the right to judge the validity of competing viewpoints from within their successful paradigm, and to be given time ( and often research money) to come up with explanations for any failures or shortcomings in it. And if Mr. Scott is to be believed, it also seems to result in Mr. Bridgman mis-representing a lot of what Mr. Scott is saying in his book. I have no way to say what is what in any of this, but I can say that one reason I am attracted to the Electric Universe theory is because of the snobby "speaking from authority" attitude coming from a lot of the mainstream physics people like "Mr. Neil De-Big Ass Tyson", who characterizes anyone who disagrees with the consensus view of climate change as ignorant and dangerous. Forgive me for speaking from ignorance, but were "flux transfer events" considered in coming up with the "climate change" model that all the scientists agree on? Maybe getting zapped every 8 minutes from the sun has a negligible effect on our climate? I know they didn't take the super-heated plasma jets they are now calling "Steve" into account since they were just recently discovered, and that as a result of "citizen scientists" on social media who noticed a steak of light in a photograph of the northern lights. The following quote is from an article found here - https://phys.org/news/2017-04-swarm-explores-feature-northern.html


"The temperature 300 km above Earth's surface jumped by 3000?C and the data revealed a 25 km-wide ribbon of gas flowing westwards at about 6 km/s compared to a speed of about 10 m/s either side of the ribbon.

"It turns out that Steve is actually remarkably common, but we hadn't noticed it before. It's thanks to ground-based observations, satellites, today's explosion of access to data and an army of citizen scientists joining forces to document it.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-swarm-explores-feature-northern.html#jCp




One of the quotes Mr. Scott shares in his rebuttal to Mr. Bridgman's critique kind of demonstrates my point about the established paradigm feeling privileged is found when he mentions a Mr. John Anderson and an article about the Pioneer flyby anomaly.

"Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist John Anderson and his colleagues have been searching for an explanation since 1980. But as of yet, they have found nothing conclusive; no spacecraft behavior or previously unknown property of the outer solar system can explain the deceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft. Scientists are being forced to consider the unthinkable: something may be wrong with our understanding of the laws of physics." .

Oh the horrors! Not really. I did a little reading on various theories put forth to explain this anomaly and others like it, and for Pioneer, they seem to have settled on unequal thermal radiation from the satellite body. But some of the other possibilities put forward (like Unruh radiation) sounded no more far-fetched than Mr. Scott's claim that electrical and magnetic effects could be involved. What I am suspicious about in the apparent acceptance of thermal radiation being the cause is the fact that they had to put together so much old data from so many sources, re-format it and even go so far as to "adjust" for earthquakes moving critical sensors out of position. I would hate to have to read the amount of data needed to verify how they can be sure just exactly how far those sensors moved using 30 year old data. What reference points were they using to measure a sensor's location back then? Were these reference points all on earth? And if so, how can you be sure of how much the continents drifted in the interval given all the changes in how we measure things using satellites these days?

You can call me what you want, but another reason I have a hard time with the mainstream paradigm is because of the universal agreement of ancient "myths" about the configuration and behavior of our solar system. It is easier for me to believe that electro-magnetism plays a much bigger role in planetary physics than it is given by the mainstream, than it is to believe that "primitive and superstitious" culture groups from all over the planet, separated by thousands of miles with no way to communicate, managed to all have identical drug induced hallucinations that caused them to come up with identical myths, and to use such similar symbols in their expressions associated with those myths. Symbols that have had look-alike counterparts produced in plasma experiments in the lab.

[Unregistered]

Found this on the T-Bolts site today. A round heliosheath is impossible to explain with the standard model. https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/

[Silence]

I found this interesting video at T-Bolts this morning - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8E0tVpI7mE

[Silence]

Until a few years ago I had never even heard about Kristian Birkeland. His relative obscurity, despite a long list of both visionary and practical lines of scientific endeavor, has been noted by many over the years. But he was way too far ahead of his time, and there was no way to prove a lot of his theories until space flight became possible. His critics took full advantage of this and were none too kind, Sydney Chapman being the most aggressive and vociferous. Nominated eight times for the Noble Prize, four times in the field of chemistry, and four times for physics, Mr. Birkeland never received one. His best chance was when he was nominated for inventing a process for making potassium nitrate fertilizer, but that opportunity was shot down by his unfortunate association with Sam Eyde. The two could not be more different in character. Kristian Birkeland raised and spent more of his own money to conduct research than any of his peers. He and his fellow researchers endured grueling conditions and risked life and limb when they conducted their research on the northern lights. One of their group perished in an avalanche. Sam Eyde, on the other hand was an ambitious industrialist and businessman who felt that if he couldn't share in the Nobel prize with Birkeland, then Birkeland should not get it either. He capitalized on the success of the fertilizer making process and was treated like royalty. This year marks the 100th anniversary of Kristian Birkeland's death, and time has been much kinder to his legacy than his contemporaries ever imagined.


http://sciencenordic.com/king-northern-lights
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/06/14/commemorating-kristian-birkeland/

[Silence]

Saw this on the T-Bolts site the other day - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9QfpbyjCaE A trail of ionized material streaming behind a meteor seems like it would make a good conductor.

[Silence]

Saw this today - https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/06/28/garrett-hill-electric-fields-in-nature-and-the-lab-space-news/ It contains some new developments in practical research to solve problems, like reducing pollution and increasing efficiency in combustion engines. Some of their experiments tie in with self-organizing movement of matter when exposed to high voltage and magnetic fields. I read a long time ago about how huge flocks of starlings could swirl and change direction in unison without colliding. For a long time it was claimed that the birds were giving one another very subtle clues as to which direction they were going to move, thus allowing other birds to avoid colliding with them. But when they put high speed cameras to use, they found that the birds were moving so fast and so close together that there was not enough distance for their reaction times to prevent collisions. It was postulated that there was a type of "group mind" at work. Electrical signals might better explain the phenomena?

[Silence]

The folks at Thunderbolts.info have so many videos, I doubt if I will be able to keep up with them. I watched this one on gravitational lensing this morning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fePQdJNVF9g Was the existence of neutrinos, and plasma in space, known about when the theory of gravitational lensing was developed? I did a search on refutations and criticism of Mr. Gupta's paper on refraction in space and found none. Found his email address and plan to ask him if there have been any responses on the topic.

[Silence]

This "Picture of the Day" article - https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/ - describes the astonishment mainstream scientists experienced when they started looking at observations of Jupiter & its moon Io from the Juno, Galileo, and New Horizons space missions. A magnetosphere twice as strong as expected, over 2 trillions watts of electric current flowing between Jupiter and Io. Filamentary plumes of material rising off of Io's surface that were thought to be volcanoes driven off heat from "gravitational kneading", were found to be giving off ultraviolet light (nobody can figure out how that can happen as a result of volcanic activity). And finally, "hot spots" in the magma under the Loki Patera caldera that vary in intensity not with the gravitational variance resulting from Io's elliptical orbit of 42.5 days, (which should be the case if the heating was done by gravitational "kneading"), but instead the heating/cooling cycle follows an approximately 10 hour cycle that is close to Jupiter's 9.5 hour rotation rate. That would tend to point towards electromagnetic induction driving the heat process, not gravitational kneading.

This video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEHuvM4Tc3U has additional information, including the prediction by astrophysicist Thomas Gold that Io's plumes would be found to be electrically driven. Also pointed out is the fact that the locations of these so-called volcanoes is incompatible with a gravitational kneading model, along with some predictions made by Wal Thornhill about the movement patterns and extreme temperature of Io's "wandering plumes". Lots of interesting stuff.

[Unregistered]

Silence posting from work again - Tree roots fossilized by high voltage electricity. See it here from 7:30 to 8:30 mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzyDm_BegGA

[Silence]

I came across this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzyDm_BegGA - at work yesterday. It describes evidence that high voltage electricity can cause rapid fossilization, either indirectly by speeding up chemical changes, or directly by transmuting one element to another. In the video Mr Jupp mentions the fact that lightning produces excess neutrons, one component necessary for this process. Fusion of atoms can also take place in a large electrical discharge. The first fusion done in a lab took place when some guy hooked up 200 Leyden jars in series and started to close the switch. So we could finally have a simple answer as to how soft tissue could be fossilized before bacteria had a chance to break it down.

[Silence]

I watched this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDa0Ax4TZlU - last night and figured I would share it here for anyone who cares to check it out. It points out a bunch of problems that observations pose for the standard theory of comets. One riddle is how to explain the high speed at which comet material is ejected during break-up, too fast to attribute to sublimating ice pressure (4:22 - 5:07 time frame). From 5:29 - 7:06 it discusses how material is ejected at these high speeds before the comet breaks up, and offers an electrical interpretation. Another enigma is the inexplicable speed and extent of comet Holmes 17P's coma expansion, the uniform spherical shape of this huge coma (very difficult to explain the size, rate of growth and uniform shape by an explosion due to pressure from evaporating ice), the persistence of this very large and uniform coma for months, and lastly the strange silence of the mainstream about this incredible cometary display (I googled "comet Holmes 17P" & "comet Homes 17P explosion" and other than "specialty" publications or outlets all I found from sources that the general public would see was one mention each from Reuters, National Geographic, and NBC). This spectacular display didn't even make the "top ten" on many astronomy source's lists for the year. From 10:33 - 11:37, it discusses the common "co-incidence" ( according to mainstream theory) of comets grazing the sun with CME activity closely following, and also the ability of a comet's tail to inexplicably slow the solar wind dramatically, which according to a notable specialist, Dr. Michael Combi, "presents a serious challenge for us theoreticians and computer modellers to figure out the physics". From 11:37 - 12:53 , close encounters with planets are discussed, with the strange displays in Jupiter's auroras, and the brightening of radiation belts when the larger fragments from Shoemaker-Levy dove in. A sudden increase in x-ray emissions due to an increase of available electrons was a "mystery" to the aforementioned Dr. Michael Combi. From there to the end of the video, the unexpectedly strong effect of Comet Sidling-Spring's encounter with Mars is mentioned. Interesting stuff....

[davidjayjordan]

Interesting, as mainstream media as with other topics, only broadcasts events and propaganda that fits in with their theories and aim.

Your honest implications and hence contradictions to main stream physics or mainstream evolutionary theory or the ice theory for comets sounds reasonable and rational. The Universe is electrical, and do realize that the speed of light is sur-passable and was.... as LIGHT was the first creation. And slowed down light particles called electrons, do comprise matter, which were created after LIGHT.

[Silence]

Hi DavidJayJordan,
Sometimes I think of electrical and magnetic forces as interfaces between God and His creation. One can produce the other (magnetism can produce electricity and electricity can produce magnetism) but we can't tell directly where the force comes from or where it goes (except for its ultimate source in God). I try to be content to leave that a mystery and just enjoy what I can learn by observing the effects they have.

[davidjayjordan]

Hi DavidJayJordan,
Sometimes I think of electrical and magnetic forces as interfaces between God and His creation. One can produce the other (magnetism can produce electricity and electricity can produce magnetism) but we can't tell directly where the force comes from or where it goes (except for its ultimate source in God). I try to be content to leave that a mystery and just enjoy what I can learn by observing the effects they have.

You can enjoy the Lord even more when you understand how HE is greater than all forces.. IMO

TOE dictates that all forces are ONE at higher powers or the ultimate POWER. Its a law... and also means that He is so powerful that even when He creates a smaller power or a force, He still doesnt lose any power.... did you catch it, HE/SHE is so powerful that even when apparently losing power in Creation, it has no effect on His power.

IE.. God is all POWERFUL, and created not just us, not just the Earth and Moon , not just the Solar System, but ALL the UNIVERSE.

How GREAT HE IS, is more than a phrase, more than a song. It is a TRUTH, that makes us appreciate HIM even more ...awesome.... His truths fill us with AWE.

******************************

Electricity and magnetism, Im no expert, but I have studied Searle and Coral Castle, and the Lord's Chemistry, and leviatation, and this is worthy of study... for I think electricity and of course magnetism are connected.

It seems dia-magnetic is electrical, and deals with opposites, even in the leviatation of the chaired person using male/female/male/female carriers.

Magnetism and electricity all stem from electrons.... but got to go.... mundane jobs to do today.... but lets ponder the Lords forces further, and concentrate and make progress. concerning this.

http://www.davidjayjordan.com/LayingonofhandsLevitation.html

The PYRE-amids had literal spiritual power, because they were harmonic with the Earth, in design, proportion as well as
showing Prophecy in their measurements.

Anyway, lets get more specific and personal and even sexual, and FLY. Or lift someone up. Its called levitation, and
apparrently this simple party levitation is a precursor to personal leviatation, or as Trixie has always wanted to do, levitate the
bad, to jolt them into the FEAR OF THE LORD, for their evil deeds. (And I'll relate the spiritual science of Giza and our temple
to you later...)

So using this hyperlink, study, read, research, and literally in this case you don't have to BELIEVE, you just have to do
because it is not determined by your mind set, but only by your alignment with the power of the earth and the power that four
temples or people have on a central Kings Chamber or person. And Viola, we have levitation.

From ... http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/antigravityworldgrid/ciencia_antigravi\tyworldgrid03.htm

HUMAN DIAMAGNETISM GRAVITY ANTENNA LEVITATION

""The principle of diamagnetism which underlies human-induced levitation and anti-gravity vortexes on the planet can be
demonstrated simply in what I call the human gravity antenna. Diamagnetism (explained below) is essentially a magnetic-neutral
zone existing between a north and south magnetic field, which can be exploited for purposes of levitation. As I will indicate
below, there are many such "magnetic flow reversal points" on the Earth marked by Grid points.

An arrangement of five human beings can be used as a quadruple gravity antenna to perform levitation of the central person.
The weight of the central person, thelevitatee, does not matter nor is the lack of strength or size of the four levitators important.
What is important is the form of the quadropolar positions around the central levitatee (See Diagram 1). Here are a few pointers
to keep in mind.

First, the levitators should be positioned 45 degrees off the magnetic compass direction of north, south, east, and west for
maximum effectiveness. Second, alternation of male and female sex of the levitators adds to the gravity antenna's power. Third,
the hand stack on the head of the central levitatee by the levitators should not have like-gendered (male/male, female/female)
hands touching. Fourth, there's no need to think of anything—just hold the hands stacked on the levitatee's head for a count of
ten. On the tenth count remove the stacked hands quickly and place one finger each on the four corners of the chair. The person
in charge of counting says "lift" and up goes the levitatee. Now let's examine this phenomenon I like to call "Party Levitation" in
more specific and practical detail.

To do Party Levitation you will need five people, one to be levitated—henceforth to be called the levitatee— and four to do
the levitating—henceforth to be called the levitators. The levitatee sits in a chair and the four levitators stand around him so that
they form a square. One levitator should stand to the levitatee's left, and just behind his shoulder. Another levitator should stand
in front of him and to his left, close to his left knee. The other two should stand on the right side of the levitatee's body and in
similar positions.




























Now the object of Party Levitation is to make the levitatee's body so light in weight that the four levitators can lift him several
feet into the air using a single finger each. If the experiment is performed properly none of the levitators will feel
the slightest resistance to their efforts. It will be as if the levitatee's body has lost its weight entirely. While the levitatee is
sitting, the four levitators surround him in the manner indicated and place their hands, one atop the other, on his head, as if they
were healing him by the LAYING ON OF HANDS..

The person who is going to float must sit relaxed in a straightbacked chair with his legs together, his feet on the floor, and his
hands in his lap. The other four participants now stand two on each side of the seated party, one at each shoulder and one at the
knee. Instruct all four to extend their arms and place their closed fists together, closed except for the forefingers which should be
extended and touching each other along their lengths as shown. The person nearest the seated man's left shoulder is now asked to
place his two extended fingers, palms downwards, beneath his left armpit. Likewise, his opposite number inserts his forefingers
beneath the right armpit, and again the other two respectively beneath the seated man's knees.

Now invite the four assistants to lift the man in this position, using only these extended fingers. However hard they try, it is
impossible. As soon as you have registered their inability to do so, ask them to stack their hands alternately, one on top of the
other on the man's head, in such a way that no person has his own two hands together, and then to exert a steady pressure
downwards. As they keep this up you count to ten. On the count "nine", they must withdraw their hands quickly from his head
and resume their earlier positions with their extended forefingers. On the count of "ten" they must try again to lift the man with
those fingers alone. This time he will go soaring into the air with no difficulty whatsoever."" (END OF EXCERPT)

Try this and experience it, so that we can go further to understanding how a phi pyramid, just like our [phi designed bodies can
impart leviatation power to whatever is inside a pyramid.

CONTINUE to PART TWO

[Silence]

I watched this yesterday on my break https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjrKT7kFbpQ . From the 1:32 - 2:33 mark the video points out that one of the band-aids (black holes) used to reconcile mainstream physics with observations is based on flawed computer models. Somebody finally took Hannes Alfven's advice and decided that laboratory experiments should be the main basis for modeling physics. Mainstream physics has been given way too much slack in defending theories using "thought experiments" (fantasies) that are defended on the basis that "the math works and it must be true because we have done all kinds of neat stuff with it". The guys at Suspicious Observers seem to have overstated the attitude of mainstream physicists toward this problem. In reading the press release found in the long series of links below the video ( https://share-ng.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/black_hole/#.WaS0HsdQ3zI ), it seems they aren't ready to toss out the idea of black holes altogether, but rather are going to look at several ways to explain the absence of certain spectral lines around black holes and "tweak" the theory. At least they are acknowledging the importance of lab experiments to prevent another 20 years of futile speculation.

(Quote) "There are now models being constructed elsewhere for accretion-powered objects that don?t employ the Resonant Auger Destruction approximation. ?These models are necessarily complicated, and therefore it is even more important to test their assumptions with laboratory experiments,? Loisel said." (End Quote)

[davidjayjordan]

I watched this yesterday on my break https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjrKT7kFbpQ . From the 1:32 - 2:33 mark the video points out that one of the band-aids (black holes) used to reconcile mainstream physics with observations is based on flawed computer models. Somebody finally took Hannes Alfven's advice and decided that laboratory experiments should be the main basis for modeling physics. Mainstream physics has been given way too much slack in defending theories using "thought experiments" (fantasies) that are defended on the basis that "the math works and it must be true because we have done all kinds of neat stuff with it". The guys at Suspicious Observers seem to have overstated the attitude of mainstream physicists toward this problem. In reading the press release found in the long series of links below the video ( https://share-ng.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/black_hole/#.WaS0HsdQ3zI ), it seems they aren't ready to toss out the idea of black holes altogether, but rather are going to look at several ways to explain the absence of certain spectral lines around black holes and "tweak" the theory. At least they are acknowledging the importance of lab experiments to prevent another 20 years of futile speculation.

(Quote) "There are now models being constructed elsewhere for accretion-powered objects that don?t employ the Resonant Auger Destruction approximation. ?These models are necessarily complicated, and therefore it is even more important to test their assumptions with laboratory experiments,? Loisel said." (End Quote)

Secular science has numerous faults, including there are ZERO proofs for luck and chance evolution. Observations, labratory etc... proves nothing and hence they take matters or evolution into their own demented hands and change the DNA into GMO species, to the demise of the Lords orginal design.

Mankind can not in their dimititive labratories prove some laws of the Lord... they dont have absolute power and Force and Heat etc...

Secular commercial science only proves what their sponsors want proven, no more no less. They are restricted as finances run secular science.

[Silence]

I watched this yesterday and found it interesting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZnfNuXiExQ. It is the first episode in a continuing series of the top ten reasons to take an "electric universe" seriously. In this video we have the "experts" starting out with a statement that any magnetic fields found in space will be negligible, only to be forced into changing their tune by unexpected observations. One thing the video pointed out that I was unaware of is the fact that Saturn is directly tied to the sun by what the mainstream calls "magnetic ropes", just as the earth is. (the connection of one of these "ropes" between the earth and the sun takes place about every eight minutes and is called a "flux transfer event". They introduce a lot of energy into our upper atmosphere) What is hard for a "gravity only" paradigm to explain is how a magnetic field can remain a coherent "rope" shape for 900 million miles without "fraying" or dissipating. The counter-rotation on Saturn and Jupiter's north poles is interesting also. I'm looking forward to the next installment of this video series.

[davidjayjordan]

I watched this yesterday and found it interesting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZnfNuXiExQ. It is the first episode in a continuing series of the top ten reasons to take an "electric universe" seriously. In this video we have the "experts" starting out with a statement that any magnetic fields found in space will be negligible, only to be forced into changing their tune by unexpected observations. One thing the video pointed out that I was unaware of is the fact that Saturn is directly tied to the sun by what the mainstream calls "magnetic ropes", just as the earth is. (the connection of one of these "ropes" between the earth and the sun takes place about every eight minutes and is called a "flux transfer event". They introduce a lot of energy into our upper atmosphere) What is hard for a "gravity only" paradigm to explain is how a magnetic field can remain a coherent "rope" shape for 900 million miles without "fraying" or dissipating. The counter-rotation on Saturn and Jupiter's north poles is interesting also. I'm looking forward to the next installment of this video series.

Interesting as all things are connected, because the Lord created them as such and in harmony with one another. Nothing stands alone and is an island nor did anything happen by chance.

Their is a distict design to the Solar System... it is not a lucky pattern but PHI related.... http://www.davidjayjordan.com/PhiSpiralofPlanets.html

The sizes of the Earth, Moon and Sun also being PHI related as the Golden Section is the template of creation.

Anyway, magnetic ropes, sounds like the force keeping the planets in orbit is equal to the force ulling them away, again not by chance but according to an amazing equality, that keeps them in orbit. Similiar to the Moon just staying perfectly in orbit around the Earth, and amazingly having just one side facing us... Revolution and rotation in synche... only possible with the Lord the Creator.... and the Moon and Sun having exactly the same angular size in the sky to allow for total eclipses (the harbinger of destruction).... its by design..

Magnetic ropes..... gravity ropes.... force ropes...... whatever to keep the planets and moons and EARTH and MOON and SUN spinning as in the CREATION SCENARIO..

But do remember the Lord Created LIGHT first... photons, first, later He created time with the Creation of Sun, Stars and Earth and Moon.

[Unregistered]

Silence here posting from work again (before my shift starts of course) I saw this at T-Bolts a few minutes ago - https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/09/21/electric-jupiter-shocks-astronomers-space-news/ and I'm sure they are happy that another big discovery of large scale electric fields and currents is being acknowledged. For years Mr. Scott has have been ridiculed and asked "where's the batteries for all these electrical currents you are imagining?". In this video, Mr. Scott gives a very simple answer - move a magnetic field through plasma or vice-versa and electric current is what you get. A little twist on one of Yogi Berra's famous quips sums up why this stuff is so surprising to the mainstream - "You can learn a lot just by looking". They didn't find electricity in space because it had been ruled out a long time ago and they weren't looking for it. Now it is showing up in lots of unexpected places.

[Silence]

Watched this video at work about a week ago after Irma knocked out the power at home. We got it restored a few days ago and I am playing catch-up now. https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/09/15/electric-plasmoids/ So there is a plasmoid at the center of our galaxy and it appears this article is suggesting that we should also be seeing our sun as one too. I am thinking about getting the re-broadcast of the Thunderbolts conference from this year to see if they have any updates on their SAFIRE project. They built a large plasma chamber with a "terrela" in the middle that they can energize with various voltage/current inputs and measure what is going on with movable probes and several other instruments.

[Silence]

Here's another good video from the T-Bolts bunch - https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/09/21/electric-jupiter-shocks-astronomers-space-news/ For years Dr. Donald Scott was laughed at for talking about electric currents in space. "Where's the power coming from, where's the battery Donald, ha, ha, ha!" Well now his detractors have egg on their faces and are once again "shocked and surprised" at huge electric fields of tremendous voltage powering Jupiters auroras. There are no batteries in space, only "generators" and conductors. Dr. Scott's simple answer for "where's the power coming from?" is induction. Move plasma through a magnetic field or vice-versa and you get an electric current. Plasma is an excellent conductor and can easily be induced to produce electric current. The video mentions that the acceleration of electrons is unstable, jumping from one state to another through obviously different mechanisms. That instability is one of the reasons plasma research was neglected for a long time. Its behavior is too hard to control and predict without powerful computers. Even with them it is still quite uncooperative. "It's alive" was the impression that Irving Langmuir had, who named the phenomenon "plasma" due to its similarity to blood plasma which exhibits the same dynamic behavior. Now that they are better able to detect electricity or its effects with more advanced telescopes and probes, I'm sure they will keep looking and find a lot more of it in the cosmos.

[Silence]

Here is the third of a ten part series on why we live in an electric universe - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMWfbIQ-hi4 Narrow "jets" of material shooting out from galaxies for many light years and not dissipating in the vacuum. Magnetism is being acknowledged as the probable reason for the jets maintaining their tight formation for such long distances, but black holes are pegged as the source of the magnetic fields as well as electric currents accompanying them. From the 6:58 - 7:50 mark some observations casting doubt on black holes being responsible is presented, where several of these "galactic jets" are found to be all aligned in the same direction. Since black holes cannot communicate with each other, and the odds of this happening by chance are ridiculous, we are left with no good explanation from the mainstream,who ignore the fact that electric currents flowing in plasma tend to align with one another. Electric current flowing in plasma also produces the same type of "beady" and "kinky" formations that some of the "stellar jets" display (5:17 - 5:48).

[davidjayjordan]

All forces, are ONE force at the highest level.

Forces did not evolve into being, or form one over billions of years. All forces stemmed from the Original Force....this is basic Unified Field Theory, which is a law as well because it applies.

In other words, an ALL POWERFUL GOD or Creator is very sane and logical in math and physics. Nothing detracts from His power or can be added to it, because all forces and all power comes from His/Her all powerful Force.

Electric Universe of course, even though science does not yet define electricity, and does not exactly know light and light speed and the ultimate instant speeds beyond light speed.

All sciences are designed as one and stem from an intelligent design rather than a slow process and development into life or non life, via randon-ness and luck and chance.

Mystery solved

[Silence]

I watched this - https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/10/29/top-10-reasons-the-universe-is-electric-4-light-bulbs-in-space-space-news/ - the other day and am just now getting around to posting it. Giant "light bulbs" emanating from the center of our galaxy are just one of the many problems facing astrophysicists, and they have been stumped by these things for seven years. The gamma rays they produce are strongest on the outside edge of these "bubbles" or "balloons", as they are also called. Problem is, in a gravity-centric paradigm there is nothing out there that can account for that. This phenomena seems vaguely similar to the problem of the heat distribution around the sun. Some of the explanations offered for the existence and characteristics of the "Fermi Bubbles" are quite entertaining. Black Holes on "diets" binging on other galaxies and then passing on an easy meal later on....

[Silence]

Another big discovery consistent with "electric universe" theory. The term "vacuum of space" is looking more like an oxymoron all the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3fvk6mH8cU

[Silence]

I used to get a kick out of "Dandy" Don Meredith singing that line after Monday night football games. In this case maybe it should be changed to "Turn ON the lights..." since it was too "dark". After several announcements in the past year or so of theories that no longer needed "dark matter and/or dark energy" to work, Ben Davidson of Suspicious Observers predicted that it was only a matter of time before they would be tossed out and alternative explanations would be accepted as candidates for further exploration - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuwkbGAnkE0 . Now it appears to be official - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuwkbGAnkE0

[Silence]

Here is the latest in a continuing 10 part series put out by the folks at thunderbolts.info - https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/11/17/top-10-reasons-the-universe-is-electric-5-pulsars-space-news/ Problems for the "big bang" theory just keep piling up, and some of the attempts to patch it up do spin my head right round. I'm still waiting to see a mainstream news story on the recent failures in the search for dark matter. Did a search this morning and all I could find was from 2012 when a paper was written claiming that dark matter was dead. The latest round of failed experiments was probably akin to doing CPR. From some of the wording in the recent press releases, it is hard to tell if they are looking to find a new theory that doesn't need dark matter to work, or just a different "form" of dark matter.

[Silence]

I watched video this morning - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsfEG4HzWAY and found the "water" analogies more useful than the transistor ones, since I haven't worked with electronics. There seem to be a lot of interesting parallels with what is observed about the sun and the solar wind. I've been interested in electricity since I was a kid, but the only only experiences I have had with plasma have been when I use an arc welder, when I goofed a few times in my former job as an electrician, and one time when I was trying to figure out for my sister why the old Toyota Corolla she bought was running rough. That one was the most interesting. The guy that had it before her either set the gap on the spark plugs way too wide, or he didn't re-gap them as the electrodes wore away. I reset the gap, which helped a little, but something still wasn't right. It was getting dark and the car was just outside the garage door so I thought about moving it inside to get better light. I was thinking about looking into the fuel system and as I reached over the engine to see what would happen if I popped the throttle open , I noticed that there was a strange small spot of purple glow on the underside of my arm where it crossed over a spark plug wire. At that point I knew the next thing the car needed was going to be plug wires, but the parts stores in town were already closed. Even if they had been open, the car wouldn't have gotten fixed right away. I got distracted farting around with experiments trying to see what I could make the "spider webs" do. I opened the gap on one of the spark plugs and then made a circle with my finger around that plug wire. As I made this circle larger or smaller, or varied the speed of the engine, the little purple arcs would jump around and get brighter or dimmer. There wasn't much current leaking through, so I didn't feel a shock. One of my brothers saw what I was doing and had to try it. For a more dramatic effect we turned the garage light off and wasted a little gasoline entertaining ourselves.

[Silence]

Sometimes I actually wish I had never heard of the "electric universe" theory, since our physical world can change so quickly in an electric environment. And a change of paradigm from the relatively slow working and steady big bang model to an electric universe model where things are less predictable (at our present level of knowledge) will create a lot of social/scientific/political upheaval. The video from Suspicious Observers found here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV4JC2NfdR8 seems like a pretty hard-hitting attack on a lot of sacred cows. Dark matter gets it first. A major expert in the Dark Matter research field, Dr. Scott Dodelson says he doesn't expect their current way of looking at things to produce results, and he also expects that when an explanation is found, it won't involve conjuring up more mysterious substances. One thing pointed out for consideration by Ben Davidson in the video is how MACHOs get sidelined from the mix of explanations for the "missing matter" in the universe, but now we find out that there are a lot more red dwarfs and "rogue planets" than what is figured into the dark matter/normal matter equations? (3:11 - 4:00). From 4:23 - 8:35 the elusive characteristics of electric currents are addressed. Electric current comes and goes but it is not always easy to find when it is present and it often moves or changes things, and then subsides. Once that happens, there is no clear cut evidence to link cause and effect. The nearest thing to evidence is the high unlikelihood of anything else being the cause. From 8:35 - 10:00, 4 observations about the problematic current state of affairs are given and suggestions on how to proceed are offered. From 10:00 to the end, Mr. Davidson gives a few examples of why he feels qualified to speak out on topics dealing with physics/astrophysics, even though the closest to a scientific field of study listed on his bio here - http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/about-faq/ is studying meteorology at Penn State. But he is a lawyer, and trained to look at evidence, using reason and logic to come to conclusions. Given that we had a 5% success rate in documenting the electric currents coming off of Enceladus' plumes, and the implications that follow if we are missing that much (or more) when looking outside our solar system, I think a lot of people have the right to say that some of the money being poured into dark matter research should be directed to alternatives like those proposed by the "electric universe" folks.

[L67]

Sometimes I actually wish I had never heard of the "electric universe" theory, since our physical world can change so quickly in an electric environment. And a change of paradigm from the relatively slow working and steady big bang model to an electric universe model where things are less predictable (at our present level of knowledge) will create a lot of social/scientific/political upheaval.

You would have been much more informed had you ignored the electric universe quack theory.





The video from Suspicious Observers found here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV4JC2NfdR8 seems like a pretty hard-hitting attack on a lot of sacred cows.

Not even close. The Big Bang has been reinforced by recent new data. I'll get to that below.



Dark matter gets it first. A major expert in the Dark Matter research field, Dr. Scott Dodelson says he doesn't expect their current way of looking at things to produce results, and he also expects that when an explanation is found, it won't involve conjuring up more mysterious substances.

These comments are very misleading. They do not represent Dr. Scott Dodelson's recent findings, nor do they support your assertions in the proper context.

They recently had a discussion from which those Dr. Scott Dodelson quotes came from. http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science-spotlights/new-map-dark-matter-puts-big-bang-theory-trial

A NEW COSMIC MAP was unveiled in August, plotting where the mysterious substance called dark matter is clumped across the universe. To immense relief?and frustration?the map is just what scientists had expected. The distribution of dark matter agrees with our current understanding of a universe born with certain properties in a Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago.

You need to read the whole article to understand the context in which Dr. Dodelson is speaking. Neither the data or Dr. Dodelson's comment support your assertions.

Here is the website that outlines Dr. Dodelson's work. https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/des-year-1-cosmology-results-papers/

And here is the paper from which the data come from. https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.01535



Here is a map shows the dark matter distribution(from Dodelson's work) over about 1/30th of the entire sky. The data come from gravitational lensing measurements of 26 million galaxies. Red shows regions containing more dark matter than the average; blue shows regions with less.

1710



One thing pointed out for consideration by Ben Davidson in the video is how MACHOs get sidelined from the mix of explanations for the "missing matter" in the universe, but now we find out that there are a lot more red dwarfs and "rogue planets" than what is figured into the dark matter/normal matter equations? (3:11 - 4:00). From 4:23 - 8:35 the elusive characteristics of electric currents are addressed. Electric current comes and goes but it is not always easy to find when it is present and it often moves or changes things, and then subsides. Once that happens, there is no clear cut evidence to link cause and effect. The nearest thing to evidence is the high unlikelihood of anything else being the cause. From 8:35 - 10:00, 4 observations about the problematic current state of affairs are given and suggestions on how to proceed are offered. From 10:00 to the end, Mr. Davidson gives a few examples of why he feels qualified to speak out on topics dealing with physics/astrophysics, even though the closest to a scientific field of study listed on his bio here - http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/about-faq/ is studying meteorology at Penn State. But he is a lawyer, and trained to look at evidence, using reason and logic to come to conclusions. Given that we had a 5% success rate in documenting the electric currents coming off of Enceladus' plumes, and the implications that follow if we are missing that much (or more) when looking outside our solar system, I think a lot of people have the right to say that some of the money being poured into dark matter research should be directed to alternatives like those proposed by the "electric universe" folks.


Here is the bottom line. Recent data does not support the assertions in that video. Sure there are things we still do not know. But that doesn't mean our current understanding totally wrong like outlined in the video. Ben Davidson took one of Dr. Dodelson's recent quotes, but failed to mention the recent evidence he was discussing in the context of that quote. Why? Because it doesn't support his conspiracies. End of story.

No, unqualified people do not have the right to say that money should be diverted from real science to a quack theory.

Where are all the peer reviewed papers that show the electric universe theory is a viable theory? There are none for a reason. Youtube videos from unqualified people do not constitute factual information.

It's still a mystery why you still insist on chasing after this quack theory.

[Silence]

Hi L67 - Thanks for the links. I read the first one and started in on some of the other stuff, but as you know, I am not a scientist so I wouldn't know how to evaluate the data or their method of interpreting it. In the kavli article they & the scientists seem to be hedging a little. (underlines are mine)

Kavli: "Tantalizingly, however, a small discrepancy between the new findings and previous observations of the early universe might just crack open the door for new physics."

RISA WECHSLER:.... "Still, it?s certainly possible that we may have something wrong."

"SCOTT DODELSON: As Risa just said, we?re not sure our current way of thinking is correct because it essentially requires us to make stuff up, namely dark matter and dark energy. It could be that we really are just a month away from a scientific revolution that will upend our whole understanding about cosmology and does not require these things."

"WECHSLER: ...... There are some small disagreements with the Planck results, but I don?t think we should be too worried yet about them."

"EFSTATHIOU: One of my hopes for Planck was that the standard model of cosmology would break and it didn?t. But wouldn?t it be absolutely great for cosmology and for physics if this happened? So we should plug away and see. Maybe we?ll be lucky."



The article seems to be about the consistency of predictions about how "dark matter" went from being more evenly dispersed in the "young" universe to clumping together over time. It is strange that they claim to be making precise measurements of something that they can't find (dark matter) First with the Planck research and now their Dark Energy Survey -

"But we?ve kept making increasingly precise measurements of the universe, and that?s where the Dark Energy Survey results come in. They are the most precise measurements of the density of matter and how it?s clumped in the local universe."

What they are measuring, if I understand correctly, is the amount of force that they have attributed to the dark matter that they have not been able to find. The consistency of their predictions with observations about the changing distribution of this "force" over time does not rule out the possibility that the force they are looking for is not dark matter at all. Could it be that they have missed something which is right under their noses, since they have been working on a foundation that says space is "empty"? This article claims that two different teams of scientists found a web of intergalactic filaments of matter using measurements based on the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect https://phys.org/news/2017-10-teams-astronomers-evidence-baryonic.html

The standard model of physics is doing its best to remain self-consistent by tweaking observations which may have been originally mis-interpreted, like gravitational lensing. Refraction was ruled out as an explanation for "lensing" because there wasn't supposed to be enough matter in space to make it possible. But now we have the sun connected to earth and several of the planets by magnetic "ropes". How can a magnetic field take on a rope-like structure unless it is being carried by material that can hold magnetism (ferrous stuff, which seems pretty much out of the question) or else some material that can carry an electric current?

As for why I am interested in all of this, I don't know for sure. Call it intuition. The more I look into it, the more it seems that the mainstream model is going to be stretched to explain a lot of stuff. Like 15 layers of counter-rotating bands on the north pole of Jupiter. How can that be explained by a gravity based paradigm? And then there is the uniformity of ancient accounts and symbols that say things used to be much different in our neighborhood.

I just read this article this morning - https://www.aaas.org/news/joint-effort-gets-underway-inform-scientists-policy-engagement which describes the push for scientists to get their views accepted by politicians. They might try doing things that make sense. Like not promoting the idea of vaccinating infants using serum containing traces of human dna from the aborted fetus tissue that was used to grow the vaccine culture on. (pushing vaccination is one of the "science points" that the article says they need to get policy makers to understand and accept) A lot of children with autism have 100 or more mutations in their dna which they didn't get from their parents. They call them "ex-nova" mutations. The filtering process used to separate vaccine culture from the growing medium isn't perfect, and since infants have a lot of t-cells in their system, some scientists are wondering if the foreign dna from vaccines is getting incorporated into infants through that route. They used to use animal tissue to grow vaccine cultures and any animal tissue that got through the filtering process would be recognized as foreign by the infant's immune system and be destroyed. Tissue from another human would be harder to spot. Forgive me for not trusting the "experts" on this, and a lot of other issues.

[Silence]

Found this article - http://news.mit.edu/2017/study-uncovers-new-mechanisms-astrophysical-plasma-turbulence-1201 through a youtube video today and couldn't believe that MIT would publish something that seems to admit that there is an "aether" in space. "Plasmas, gas-like collections of ions and electrons, make up an estimated 99 percent of the visible matter in the universe, including the sun, the stars, and the gaseous medium that permeates the space in between."


"Existing hypotheses about the dynamics of plasma turbulence ?can correctly predict some aspects of what is observed,? he says, but they ?lead to inconsistencies.? "

?Naturally occurring plasmas in space and astrophysical environments are threaded by magnetic fields and exist in a turbulent state,? Loureiro says. ?That is, their structure is highly disordered at all scales: If you zoom in to look more and more closely at the wisps and eddies that make up these materials, you?ll see similar signs of disordered structure at every size level.? And while turbulence is a common and widely studied phenomenon that occurs in all kinds of fluids, the turbulence that happens in plasmas is more difficult to predict because of the added factors of electrical currents and magnetic fields."

This link http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-plasma-science-and-fusion-center-associate-professor-nuno-loureiro-probing-origins-of-the-magnetic-universe-0623 is to an article about a previous paper written by Loureiro that was the basis for this latest one. ?We now strongly believe that these magnetic fields critically affect structure formation in the universe ? they are critical to shaping the world as we see it. In a sense, the existence of magnetic fields may be the reason you and I are having this conversation,? Loureiro says.

This quote from the article about Loureiro's original paper asks an important question, and one that ends up in a bigger "chicken or the egg" scenario than is stated -

"The question for Loureiro is: Can you amplify a small magnetic seed field, via a plasma dynamo, to levels we observe today in less time than the current age of the universe? And of course: How does a magnetic seed field form in the first place?"

In addition to finding out how a "magnetic seed field" forms, we might also want to find out how the plasma that makes up the amplifying dynamo was formed in the first place. It appears we have three major players involved - plasma, magnetic fields and electricity. Putting one or more of them in motion seems to generate one or more of the others.

I apologize for the bad punctuation, but it happens when I copy and paste things into a post. This seems to be a recent problem. Richard, have you had anyone else mention a similar situation?

[Silence]

Watched this video just now and found it very interesting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKC-Kuo8mlU . Solar flares and CME events seem to have a big effect on weather in addition to messing with radio communications and the power grid.

[Silence]

Here is an interesting video on the self-organizing and self-preservation behaviors of plasma - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFI4SYKfpTg . Plasma forms itself into "cells" or "blobs" as they are called in the video. These cells will adapt to various changes in their environment in order to preserve their structural integrity. Really interesting how the scientists liken some of these adaptations to the process of breathing. Moving and changing in response to changing conditions also seems like it could be called "intelligence".

[Silence]

I had to chuckle when I read the title for this video on how uncooperative black holes have been recently for standard cosmology - https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/12/10/black-holes-behaving-badly-space-news/.

[Silence]

I just finished watching this fifth segment in a ten part series on evidence that we live in an electric universe. The evidence seems to be piling up. https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/12/18/top-10-reasons-the-universe-is-electric-6-charged-planets-inner-solar-system-space-news/

[Silence]

Merry Christmas everybody. The 1:57 to 2:45 section of this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqkX7-meotQ deals with the recent release of a study confirming electric currents flowing in the narrow jets shooting out along the axis of active galaxies. The diagram shown has 2 counter-rotating current flows, and Mr. Davidson wonders aloud whether there are more, less energetic, counter-rotating rings outside of the central ones, the existence of which could explain how galaxies can rotate so fast at their outer edges without flying apart. In any case, there will probably be a lot of argument surrounding this discovery.

[Silence]

Saw this video this morning and wanted to share it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoNlQAK7Mxo Electro-magnetism drives a lot of stuff here on earth. 20 or so years ago, when the "global warming" tag came out, I actually told some of the people I was working with at the time that the sun's variable output could be heating the earth. The solar wind pushing on our magnetic "shield" moves it and causes variations in its strength. With all the iron in our planet, moving magnetic fields across iron creates electric current, which also produces heat. Most of them looked at me like I was nuts. The idea of "earth spots" as being akin to sunspots, and being part of the seismic process is intriguing. Will have to check out quakewatch.net next.

[Silence]

I watched this video yesterday - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFjcrvc9C70 and found it very interesting. Never knew that lightning strikes can lift material up in piles and melt it. A lot of geological features show evidence of this on a much larger scale. Many anomalous geological formations find much simpler explanations when electrical effects are used to explain them. It is pretty scary to think about what kind of t-bolt could create something like Shiprock Mountain in Arizona. I drove through parts of Utah quite a while back and can remember thinking, "how in the world can water erosion create miles of triangular shaped buttress formations that are so symmetrical". Resonance in "shock waves" produced by huge electric discharges makes a lot more sense.

[Silence]

Watched this video this morning - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aemwD0SW0Y0 and was surprised to hear (the 2:13 - 4:00 marks) that there is evidence that the nucleus of atoms may not have neutrons holding the protons together, but rather that the electrons may be spaced so that the attraction of separate protons to them also pulls them closer to each other. Another interesting development is the recent paper on gamma ray bursts from the Crab nebula (4:10 - 5:14 marks), where a tiny portion of the matter there put out huge gamma ray flares within hours of each other. The mainstream is scratching their heads over how they can be so intense, how can the power to put out these powerful, repetitive bursts can be accumulated within hours, when the distance across the nebula takes light-months to traverse, and how can such a small area of the nebula put out energy that is only one order of magnitude less than that contained in the entire nebula? Maybe they could ask the power company workers (8:10 - 8:45 marks)The steadily increasing array of "perplexities" for the standard model finds simple explanations that Occam would give a thumbs up to in "an electric universe" paradigm.

[Silence]

Evidence, evidence everywhere, but not a bit do I see, (a black hole ate it) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe0jgBqWjKI

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Evidence, evidence everywhere, but not a bit do I see, (a black hole ate it) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe0jgBqWjKI
Hey there Silence,

I started watching the video and was surprised to see that they were quoting peer reviewed mainstream scientific articles that supposedly support their theory. So what is the "evidence" that is being ignored?

You seem quite convinced by their ideas. I would enjoy discussing the scientific evidence with you. Is it true that they reject General Relativity? If so, how do they explain it's effectiveness? And do they have a replacement theory that works as well? Michael Shermer brought up this point in his article The Electric Universe Acid Test (https://michaelshermer.com/2015/10/the-electric-universe-acid-test/). Here's an exerpt:



I was invited to speak on the difference between science and pseudoscience. The most common theme I gleaned from the conference is that one should be skeptical of all things mainstream: cosmology, physics, history, psychology and even government (I was told that World Trade Center Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11 and that ?chemtrails??the contrails in the sky trailing jets?are evidence of a government climate-engineering experiment).


The acid test of a scientific claim, I explained, is prediction and falsification. My friends at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, for example, tell me they use both Newtonian mechanics and Einstein?s relativity theory in computing highly accurate spacecraft trajectories to the planets. If Newton and Einstein are wrong, I inquired of EU proponent Wallace Thornhill, can you generate spacecraft flight paths that are more accurate than those based on gravitational theory? No, he replied. GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are also dependent on relativity theory, so I asked the conference host David Talbott if EU theory offers anything like the practical applications that theoretical physics has given us. No. Then what does EU theory add? A deeper understanding of nature, I was told. Oh.


If their "theory" doesn't actually have any practical applications and can't make any real predictions, then is it even a "scientific theory"?

[Silence]

Hello Richard,
Sorry I haven't replied sooner. I have been working six days a week for the last several months and the last week has been a doozy so I hadn't been checked the site in a while.

One of the things I was referring to as being ignored is what seems to me to be a chicken/egg scenario surrounding discussion of magnetic fields in space (2:15 -5:55). The standard model uses "leftover" magnetic fields from the "big bang" combined with kinetic movement of material/gravity to explain the generation of electric currents in space and their resulting magnetic structures which are observed. The electric universe postulates that the only way to have magnetic fields in space is if there is electricity flowing in the first place, and that material is being moved around by electric charge flowing, which also produces the magnetic fields. discussed in the 5:55 to 8:14 mark of the video. The paper by Denise Gabuzda & co. on active galactic nuclei as co-axial cables mentions "radio loud" AGN's, and mentions the possibility that the source of power for the radio noise is a "cosmic battery", but Mr. Scott points out that it is well known that electricity flowing in double layers in plasma generates radio noise, but no mention of this in the paper. Maybe the gravity from a black hole has sucked her field of view into a narrow tunnel, or maybe Hannes Alfen's work is anathema. I don't know. Then at the 7:12 - 7:36 portion, Mr. Scott points out the similarity between the diagram of the electrical currents that the paper's author included in her work and his own diagram of a Birkeland current structure that was published back in 2015. (the north pole of Jupiter has a structure of at least a dozen counter-rotating bands of gas that looks surprisingly similar to Mr. Scott's model, and which the standard model is hard pressed to explain) Since Mr. Scott is just a retired electrical engineer, Ms. Gabuzda has probably never heard of him or his paper. She may or may not know about any of the people noted in the 7:51 - 8:14 section, but it seems to me that the alternative possibilities which their work could imply gets sucked into a black hole and disappears.

This video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zELjb6iDjL8 puts forth what seems to me a good explanation of how & why Einstein's theory of relativity got its foothold. A good bit of the "cultural" aspect behind this phenomenon can be explained by scientific advance far outpacing the ability of social/political power structures to keep up. Also, at the time of Eddington's experiments on "gravitational lensing" little was known about the atmosphere around bodies in space, and in space itself. There is a lot more material out there than they thought. According to Eddington himself, he didn't go into his experiments with a critical mindset, he was already convinced that Einstien was right. (4:25 -5:20) In this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fePQdJNVF9g , doubt is cast on "gravitational lensing", unexplained observations are noted, and a paper by a Dr. Gupta is mentioned that postulates that refraction is responsible for what is now called "gravitational lensing". I mentioned this paper in a previous post, and just got around to sending him an e-mail this morning, asking him if anyone has published a paper refuting or falsifying his claims. I did a quick search and couldn't find any, but I'm hoping he will respond, since he is in a position to know. I have already spent too much time at the computer this morning, so I gotta run. If you don't want to "waste" too much of your time watching these videos all the way through, you can run them at 2x speed and use the closed captions, which are pretty accurate.

[Silence]

I am waiting to go to work and have a few minutes to post a link to a page that contains information on a prediction concerning Saturn. Scientists were surprised when they found a "hot spot" on Saturn's south pole. Wal Thornhill said this was consistent with electric universe theory and that he expected them to eventually find that the north pole had one too, which would present even more of a conundrum for them to explain, since that pole had not been facing the sun for a long time. Guess what they found? http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm you can find links about 2/3 of the way down the page dealing with discovery of the south pole hot spot in February of 2005 and one from January of 2008, when they found the one on the north pole. One of them mentions that Venus also has a hot spot on one of its poles, but I don't know if they found one at the other.

I imagine that one reason Mr. Thronhill answered no to the question about using electric universe principles to design flight paths for spacecraft is because gravity plays a more dominant role at the size scale being dealt with. Further, the theory is still in its infancy and practical applications may take a while to become evident. Some have been undertaken already by factoring "space weather" in climate models, and the guys at Suspicious observers have been working on a model that factors solar impacts on the planet into earthquake activity and induced currents in the ground affecting volcanic activity.

[Silence]

Saw this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX_kn7Yisq8 a few minutes ago and don't have time right now to read about the stuff mentioned from other sources, but I wanted to post it so people can check it out. The 1:05 - 2:25 part is interesting in that they have found a large number of magnetic fields in a star forming area where gravity is being overpowered by magnetic fields moving material around. The next section describes proton variations on earth that follow a 450 day cycle. The papers authors state that the most likely cause is earth's passing through the area of a magnetic connection between the Sun and Jupiter, which fits this time cycle.

[Silence]

This video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCuNrtHxTU has a little more information to add to the video I linked to in my post from yesterday on the merging of "magnetic connections" between the sun, earth, and jupiter. Turns out that each of the planets in the solar system experience something similar when they pass one another in orbit, causing their individual "magnetic ropes" to merge and then separate again. There are also links to other interesting videos listed below the screen. This one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ_gOb6PWZI - titled "Our Mysterious USGS Friend Strikes Again", is on the subject of refinements to the Suspicious Observers' earthquake prediction work. Mr. Davidson got so wrapped up in trying to include more types of data correlations into a "personalized version" of their official model that he failed to notice several factors that actually help to bolster the success rate of the official model. Someone who works at the USGS, and supports their efforts anonymously due to concern for his/her career, pointed out the pattern. Apparently this is not the first time this "friend" has come in handy. I wish I had more time to look into this stuff, it's fascinating.

[L67]

Silence,

Please help me out here. What is it that you find so compelling about the Electric Universe Theory? I've tried to listen to the videos you post. I can't make it more than a few minutes before I have to quit. I don't see any evidence that would make any reasonably competent person that understands science dismiss all the knowledge we have accumulated. That's what belief in the Electric Universe Theory requires you to do in order to believe it. I see a lot of quote mining in your videos to support the conclusion they want.


Could you provide one credible person with peer reviewed papers that support this theory?

[L67]

Scientists were surprised when they found a "hot spot" on Saturn's south pole. Wal Thornhill said this was consistent with electric universe theory and that he expected them to eventually find that the north pole had one too, which would present even more of a conundrum for them to explain, since that pole had not been facing the sun for a long time. Guess what they found? http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm you can find links about 2/3 of the way down the page dealing with discovery of the south pole hot spot in February of 2005 and one from January of 2008, when they found the one on the north pole. One of them mentions that Venus also has a hot spot on one of its poles, but I don't know if they found one at the other.

What Wal Thornhill claims is wrong. Here is his claim: Thornhill: The Electric Universe also predicts, experimentum crucis, that BOTH poles should be hot, not one hot and the other cold.

I followed the link that they gave here (http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm#sat) that supposedly support their claims.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saturn-hotspots-cassini/scientists-find-hot-spot-on-saturns-chilly-pole-idUSL034576920080103

Saturn's chilly north pole boasts a hot spot of compressed air, a surprising discovery that could shed light on other planets within our own solar system and beyond, researchers said on Thursday. Scientists already knew about a hot spot at Saturn's sunny south pole but data from the Cassini spacecraft now shows that the winter pole drenched in darkness also has a hot spot, said Nick Teanby, a planetary scientist, who worked on the study. With this Cassini mission we can also see the winter pole, which we are not able to see from Earth because of the tilt of the planet, said Teanby of the University of Oxford. "We didn't expect it to have a hot spot at the north." The hot spot is essentially a small, narrow region hotter than the gas surrounding it, the international team reported in the journal Science.

It says they found a hot spot on Saturn's chilly north pole, not that both poles are hot.


There is no conundrum. They know what caused the hot spot. From the Reuters article. ?We think it is due to air descending from higher in the atmosphere to lower in the atmosphere,? Teanby said in a telephone interview. ?The mass of air heats up as it?s compressed -- like air in a bicycle pump.?

And here is Nasa themselves confirming these findings. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080103.html

"The hot spots are the result of air moving polewards, being compressed and heated up as it descends over the poles into the depths of Saturn," said Leigh Fletcher, a planetary scientist from the University of Oxford, England

Thornhill's predictions are flat out wrong.


I imagine that one reason Mr. Thronhill answered no to the question about using electric universe principles to design flight paths for spacecraft is because gravity plays a more dominant role at the size scale being dealt with. Further, the theory is still in its infancy and practical applications may take a while to become evident. Some have been undertaken already by factoring "space weather" in climate models, and the guys at Suspicious observers have been working on a model that factors solar impacts on the planet into earthquake activity and induced currents in the ground affecting volcanic activity.

The main reason is because the theory is total crap. The Rosetta missions prove that. You can read about it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft)

You need to consider the math calculations involved in order to send the Rosetta spacecraft to safely land on a comet. We are talking about calculations that account for years of travel time along with the gravity of several planets repeatedly to reach a destination that is astonishing. This was all successfully calculated and predicted by astronomers. And why were the predictions correct? Because are current model of gravity is unbelievably accurate. You don't carry out a mission like this if our model of gravity is as the EU crowd states.

Here is what Rosetta accomplished before reaching the probe.

March 4, 2005: Earth flyby
Feb. 25, 2007: Mars flyby
Nov. 13 2007: Earth flyby
Sept. 5, 2008: asteroid 2867 ?teins flyby
Nov. 13 2009: Earth flyby
July 10, 2010: asteroid 21 Lutetia flyby

How could Rosetta flyby these planets and asteroids without the effects of the electric universe felt? How could Rosetta survive traveling through the Suns electric field? How could our incredibly accurate model of gravity allow us to successfully carry out this mission if the EU theory had any merit? I could go on and on.

The theory is total unworkable garbage. That is why there are no models with any explanatory power. There simply is no way to account for all the concrete knowledge we already know. End of story.

[Silence]

Wal Thornhill knew that they had found a hot spot at the south ploe of saturn. To someone with no axe to grind, when he says that they should find both poles to be "hot", I would expect that he meant that they would find something similar at the north pole, not something covering the whole top of the planet. That is what they found, as described in the NASA paper - "The infrared data show that the shadowed north pole vortex shares much the same structure and temperature as the one at the sunny south pole.".

They are also using vague terms to describe their findings. "The "hot spot" appears (Italics all mine) to be related to Saturn's dynamic weather systems, rather than to seasonal changes in the amount of sunlight at the pole."

"The hot spots are the result of air moving polewards, being compressed and heated up as it descends over the poles into the depths of Saturn," said Leigh Fletcher, a planetary scientist from the University of Oxford, England, and the lead author of the Science paper. "The driving forces behind the motion, and indeed the global motion of Saturn's atmosphere, still need to be understood." Now there is something, hot material sinking instead of rising? No wonder that was followed by a comment that the behavior of saturn's atmosphere still needs to be understood.


"Though similar, the two polar regions differ in one striking way. At the north pole, the newly discovered vortex is framed by the distinctive, long-lived and still unexplained polar hexagon. This mysterious feature encompassing the entire north pole was first spotted in the 1980s by NASA's Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft. Cassini's infrared cameras also detected the hexagon in deep atmospheric clouds early in 2007.

In their paper, Fletcher and his colleagues report that the bright, warm hexagon is much higher than previous studies had shown. "It extends right to the top of the troposphere," says Fletcher. "It is associated with downward motion in the troposphere, though the cause of the hexagonal structure requires further study." It is hard for this ol' caveman noggin of mine to imagine how there can be a hexagonal feature that holds its shape in length and width as it also descends through several layers of a gaseous atmosphere. Maybe their "further study could include modelling plasma behavior in a lab?

The Electric Universe theory does not claim that using what we know about gravity will not work in designing flight paths for satellites or for calculating the orbits of planets through time. There are "domains" for each of the forces involved. They do claim that if we suddenly entered a more "electrically charged" area of the universe, what we think we know about gravity will need to be adjusted. One of the videos I linked to recently mentions a paper done by mainstream, peer reviewed, scientists, which describes star-forming regions strung out on a filament of glowing material, where the magnetic field is overpowering gravity and moving material around. If I remember correctly, I recall reading several references recently to mainstream articles where the alignment and behavior of the magnetic fields is confounding their explanation of how left-over remnants of magnetism from the "big bang" being moved around by gravity could result in the configuration of the magnetic fields they are finding. One reason I am interested in electric universe theory is because they have simple answers for things that are very complex and puzzling in a gravity-only paradigm. I would love to hear an explanation for the 13 counter-rotating bands of material circling Jupiter's north pole.

[Silence]

Market share for dark matter takes another hit (2:38 -3:46) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxc_1P9A-IA

[Silence]

Another good chunk of info.... This video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tyKNHfXzZQ mentions several things that are very interesting, but the section from 2:17 - 3:25 has a lot to do with the thread topic. They have found the oldest star in the galaxy, but it is still in main sequence and not even close to dying? Especially relevant is the 2:55 - 3:25 section on twisting in galactic jets, which would be expected in Birkeland currents, but well nigh impossible in a kinetic/gravitational paradigm.

p.s. My apologies for forgetting to put the link in the post this morning. I had to work late yesterday and hadn't yet had my coffee upon rising.

[Silence]

This video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HvXhwrlOGI describes another big step forward for "electric universe" principles and further research, and more challenges for the mainstream. Professor Egedal makes the same claims that Hans Alfven did. The energy attributed to "magnetic re-connection is not stored in magnetic fields and released when they break and re-connect, the magnetic fields are created by electric current and when current flow is interrupted, the energy from the entire circuit dumps into the break.

[Silence]

This video by the T-Bolts folks - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5Aft6JA86Y is the 7th in their "Top 10 Reasons The Universe is Electric". It contains some overlap with things in videos I posted here before, but much that hasn't, including some predictions made by Wal Thornhill about Saturn's moon Io, prior to the arrival of the Galileo probe (8:42 - 11:11). He nailed it. Then the "filamentary jets" on Enceladus that are so hard for standard theory to explain are discussed. (11:12 -13:30) From the 14:55 to 22:00 mark, several areas of discovery about the planet Saturn are discussed, including information which even mainstream scientists say shows that Saturn's rings are much younger than previously thought, an. From 22:00 to the end of the video, the "tossed salad" nature of our solar system is compared to other star/exoplanet systems, the vast majority of which are far more uniform than our own. When you start putting all of this stuff together, the various scenarios put forward by "electric universe" proponents don't look so far fetched.

[Silence]

Dark Matter, Quantum Physics, and Quasar/Black Hole behavior theories all get smacked today. More details here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj2CRxo1VHk

[Silence]

The 3:09 - 7:43 section of this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO79mMx6Ieg discusses evidence that the "icy dust grains" coming up from Enceladus, one of Saturn's moons, are not being pushed into space by cryo-volcanoes, but rather are being pulled from the surface by an electric current, in a process similar to "electric discharge machining" that is used in manufacturing. Also mentioned is one factor that is a big obstacle for any scientist looking for evidence of "an electric universe". Electric currents can be "hidden" by the things they pick up and carry along with them. Scientists have been able to use the Cassini probe to measure ion levels and magnetism in Enceladus' plumes, and the data suggests that such "hidden" electric currents are what drives them, but there is no way at present to do the same thing for structures found on a galactic scale.

[Silence]

The Thunderbolts Project just released this video of Dr. Donald Scott talking about a new paper he has written which is scheduled for release in April - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdYrgJrBFr0 . This paper is a further refinement of his earlier one on the structure of Birkeland currents, and relates the characteristics of Birkeland currents to what is known about the "galaxy rotation problem" that got dark matter invented. It should be interesting to see what comes of this.

[Silence]

This video about the Hypatia Stone meteorite raises a lot of questions and problems for the mainstream theories on our solar system and planetary geology - https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2018/02/28/hypatia-stone-shatters-solar-system-myths-space-news/

[Silence]

Hans Alfen and Kristian Birkeland would probably chuckle and shake their heads over the newly found interest and discoveries in cosmic plasma research. Princeton appears to be getting on the bandwagon now, though they are still talking about "magnetic re-connection" being the driving force behind energy releases instead of stating that the flow of energy is what creates the magnetic fields in the first place. In the atmosphere of space, a magnetic filed can only move or be broken if the electric current which creates it moves or is disrupted. https://www.pppl.gov/news/2018/02/plasma-bubbles-help-trigger-massive-magnetic-events-outer-space Who knows, maybe someone will finally decide it is time to follow Hans Alfeven's advice and designate "double layers" as celestial objects. It is important that the researchers at Princeton found that disruption at one point in a current sheet can cause immediate effects at a remote location far away.

Alfven's suggestion for naming double layers as celestial objects can be found in section "G", page 30 here - https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870005703.pdf The ending of the paper has observations about the psychological dynamics of scientific groups based on Juan Roederer's work, which explains why "outsiders", no matter how qualified in their own specialized niche of science, are not welcome to offer suggestions or solutions to someone in a different field of specialized study. Some of the stuff reminds of Iain McGilchrist's book "The Master and His Emissary" which deals with the pitfalls of giving too much control and free rein to our "left brain".

[Silence]

Some of the people from the Thunderbolts Project working on the "electric universe" theory have designed and built a vacuum chamber equipped with all kinds of instrumentation for studying plasma & electricity. It looks like they are making good progress. https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2018/03/15/the-safire-project-2017-2018-update/

[Silence]

This video has some info on new studies that lend themselves to the electric universe theory, and some stuff that could undercut the current paradigm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oz-8OEmzKo From :58 -1:24 a quasar with huge axial jets has a large magnetic field causing rotation of the jet. The same mechanism could cause rotation of galaxies. After that, results from the PIXIE experiment have big implications for dark matter theories and for the cosmic microwave background. then comes info showing dense filaments of dust having strong magnetic fields surrounding them, and forming stars at equidistant spacings. No one seems to be talking (yet) about electric current driving the magnetic fields, or birthing the stars.

[Silence]

Watched the new video put out yesterday by the t-bolts bunch. They ask a good question. Why, with all of the peer-reviewed papers coming out which document large electric currents flowing in space, is no one talking about the implications for the standard model of physics? My guess is it will take a while.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2018/04/02/who-still-denies-electric-currents-in-space-space-news/

[Silence]

The 2:17 - 3:28 portion of this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQEUCO3_dxk mentions large-scale organization of magnetic fields around galaxies which stumps those using the standard model of physics, since this magnetic structure is supposed to be caused by exploding supernovas, which would make it more chaotic. A much simpler explanation would be electric currents hiding in plain sight.

[Silence]

Here is a good description of why the mainstream physics paradigm needs to be re-examined to see just how big a "domain" gravity/relativity are valid in. https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/

[Silence]

This video by suspicious observers references a couple of paper that should put the electric universe into the ring of contenders. Redshift measurements are found by Gaia satellite measurements to be off by more than a little. One measurement taken, of the Westerlund super cluster is off by 3.5 to 5 times. All the new measurements show that things are much closer than using standard redshift models. Jets of material and strong magnetic fields bump neutrino collapse out of the mix and are used to fix the model for super nova core collapse. And finally, a new release of magnetic mapping shows that earth's magnetoshpere is full of swirling plasma cells, with shapes that look very similar to what is seen visibly on Jupiter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZS8lqzbr2o

[Silence]

The 3:46 - 4:15 portion of this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilrmge_Oo0 references a new discovery that could explain how charge separation still exists in space. A previously undetected field of ultraviolet radiation. Lots of implications tied to that one.

[Silence]

2:50 - 3:15 Milky Way's magnetic field is too well structured to have been caused by novas (or other kinetic/gravitational forces), which would have resulted in a more chaotic structure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0rBWJwhp9k

[Silence]

It is ridiculous how "in your face evidence " still gets spun to fit the mainstream paradigm - 2:13 to 3:45 section https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFHDEuudpC8&list=PLHSoxioQtwZeQaRnO5_9AJB2RmevUpuPT

[Silence]

I haven't heard much that is new for a while from the folks at Thunderbolts.info, but found today's picture of the day interesting. Particle detectors out in the Utah desert registered hits from cosmic protons where each proton had the apparent mass of a baseball due to travelling at speeds just under the speed of light. The scientists logging these 'hits' called them 'OMG' particles since they were carrying so much energy. There must be one whale of a particle accelerator out there somewhere, and it's a pretty good bet it doesn't run on gravity.

[Silence]

The 2:00 - 2:44 section of this video references a study that claims the presence large swaths of very fine dust in the interstellar areas of galaxies. Mr. Davidson of Suspicious Observers puts a spin on this observation and says that these areas of dust could be structured by an electric charge flowing. Either way, the presence of this dust throws a monkey wrench in the parameters used searching for dark matter. Combine the dust (matter) with electro-magnetism, and the rotational problems that prompted the search for dark matter could be solved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkJDyfpuc1w

[Silence]

The 2:19 - 3:06 portion of this video discusses some important info to be considered in the search for, or debate over, the existence of dark matter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6sehuvL1nA Looks like they might be getting ready to throw in the towel.

[Silence]

The 1:33 - 2:24 portion of this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmv8ErI-vyk is about some interesting experiments at Imperial College in LONDON, simulating "solar flares" or a "CME" in a lab and then watching the interaction between the plasmas generated and magnetized balls, which simulate planets. This is followed by mention of work being done on "black holes" circling each other, and studying the effects produced on each "black hole" as they get closer to each other. Ben Davidson, the narrator expresses his hope that scientists will keep looking for more examples of this kind of setup in the cosmos, and also to include the central "interaction zone" in their observations and modelling. If they keep at it long enough, they may be able to watch the process of an actual merger. The 2:40 - 3:07 portion talks about galactic and stellar scale "recycling programs". Cool stuff.

[Silence]

This recent video by the folks at thunderbolts.info deals with a compilation of evidence that comets are electrically active. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBMi5UpabXE It's getting harder for the mainstream to dance around the evidence.

[Silence]

The 2:52 - 3:21 portion of this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lIXgm22o_g mentions a recent press release by NASA which is about a paper that claims gravity is not responsible for star and star cluster formation, turbulence and magnetic fields are. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/cosmic-collisions-sofia-unravels-the-mysterious-formation-of-star-clusters So NASA and Princeton are following lines of evidence that are consistent with an electric universe perspective. Mr. Davidson, the spokeman for suspiciousobservers.org, overstates his case a little when he says that NASA is firmly on board with the electric universe theory, but I can understand why he says that. It seems it is only a matter of time now before all these lines of evidence they have been finding start to converge and produce a new paradigm.

[Silence]

I pulled up this article from a link below the Suspicious Observers daily video I watched this morning. One of the members of their group, who Mr. Davidson says is a legit scientist wrote a paper on the likely possibility that the 11 & 22 year solar cycles are driven by changes in the electric current flowing from the sun out to planets with magnetic fields and then back. Mainstream press releases seem to insist on calling them "magnetic flux ropes" instead of electric currents. I guess they can rationalize this by the fact that 'flux' means "a flowing" and charged particles flow along magnetic field gradients. In any case, it is interesting. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1901/1901.10574.pdf

This is the suspicious observers youtube video that mentioned this paper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm-jAVXT5dc

[Silence]

Another spate of news reinforcing the electric universe paradigm. 2:30 - 3:39 A plasma torus around the central jet of our galaxy similar to the Van Allen belts around earth, one of Princeton's top dogs gives a talk on "The Magnetic Universe", and a paper (provisionally accepted at the time) giving evidence that magnetism plays a greater role than gravity in star and filament formation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX8afWRQkIk (sorry I forgot to paste the link earlier. That's what I get for posting with too little sleep and not enough coffee first)

[Silence]

I figured it wouldn't be long after the big announcement that a black hole had been photographed that the Electric Universe folks would release an alternative view that is rarely presented. They did a 2 part presentation that contains a good description of what the famous "black hole" picture is really showing. I also found it interesting when Mr. Thornhill noted that the algorithms used to "fill in the data gaps" were developed by people who expected to see a black hole. Anyway, here are the links to the 2 videos -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4NffTr_GMk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk2-lH9ewuA

[Silence]

The 2:39 - 3:33 portion of this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfzIb9XrVhE - talks about big problems for the mainstream physics paradigm, and a big boost for electric/plasma universe theory. Plasma works as a refractive lens, and there is a lot more of it than they thought. It also is structured along magnetic lines (which are electric in nature) and not by chaotic gravitational forces. A few more straws on the old camel's back.

[Silence]

The 2:19 - 3:00 section of this video has a simulation of plasma and dust interacting with galaxies, and a paper describing a "bridge" of dust and plasma connecting two galaxy clusters. That stuff is like kryptonite to gravity-based theories.

[Silence]

The 1:40 - 4:05 section of this video deals with info that is directly related to the "dark matter" fiasco, and also supports an electric/plasma universe model.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN72r9rJ4w0

[Silence]

The 2:28 to 3:38 portion of this video pretty much sums up the title of this thread. The 1:24 - 2:27 portion has implications for an electric universe perspective also.

[Silence]

I wanted to post an update on the "Electric/Plasma Universe" but when I pulled up the thread and looked at my last entry I realized that I forgot to paste the link that I'd copied (again). These days I don't have as much free time as I would like, so I need to remember to slow down and not try to cram too many things into too little time.

[Silence]

A few days ago, the folks at Suspicious Observers put out an "info-mentary" (found here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4pWZGBpWP0 ) on the electric/plasma universe vs mainstream physics debate that is even more convincing than the video I forgot to link up in post #92. It's a bit "chopped up" but contains a lot of references to the tsunami of recent peer-reviewed papers that practically prove that the mainstream dark matter/dark energy/ gravity paradigm is dead. It also has a statement in it from Anthony Peratt, that this paradigm was actually proven wrong about 50 years ago, but the public wasn't told because the research that proved it was done by our national science labs, and had ties to nuclear research that was classified. University science departments could not afford the equipment to do this kind of research. So it comes as no surprise when the 41:30 - 41:44 section shows how the "battle lines" seem to be formed today. A lot is riding on how this all plays out. It's as big a deal as what happened in Galileo's time.

[L67]

A few days ago, the folks at Suspicious Observers put out an "info-mentary" (found here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4pWZGBpWP0 ) on the electric/plasma universe vs mainstream physics debate that is even more convincing than the video I forgot to link up in post #92. It's a bit "chopped up" but contains a lot of references to the tsunami of recent peer-reviewed papers that practically prove that the mainstream dark matter/dark energy/ gravity paradigm is dead. It also has a statement in it from Anthony Peratt, that this paradigm was actually proven wrong about 50 years ago, but the public wasn't told because the research that proved it was done by our national science labs, and had ties to nuclear research that was classified. University science departments could not afford the equipment to do this kind of research. So it comes as no surprise when the 41:30 - 41:44 section shows how the "battle lines" seem to be formed today. A lot is riding on how this all plays out. It's as big a deal as what happened in Galileo's time.

Silence,

Seriously, you need to stop making such silly statements. Dark matter has been recently observed which renders your alternative theories dead. A recent paper was published in The ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL that proves dark matters existence. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aaffd6.

Here is the cliff notes version of the paper from the Dr. herself. https://www.sissa.it/sites/default/files/Dark%20matter%20exists%20SISSA%20PR_2.pdf

As fascinating as it is mysterious, dark matter is one of the greatest enigmas of
astrophysics and cosmology. It is thought to account for 90% of the matter in the
Universe, but its existence has been demonstrated only indirectly and recently
called into question. New research conducted by SISSA removes the recent
doubts on the presence of dark matter within the galaxies, disproving the
empirical relations in support of alternative theories. The study, published in The
Astrophysical Journal, also offers new insights into understanding the nature of
dark matter and its relationship with ordinary matter.

From the expansion of the universe to the movement of stars in the galaxies, the
phenomena are many, which, the presence of ordinary matter alone, namely that
composed by atoms, is unable to explain. The attractive force it generates is not
sufficient. This had led to the theory of the existence of dark matter, namely
undetectable, and the idea that galaxies are embedded in its spherical halo.
?Three years ago, a few colleagues of the Case Western Reserve University
strongly questioned our understanding of the universe and the in-depth work of
many researchers, casting doubt on the existence of dark matter in the galaxies,?
explains Chiara Di Paolo, a doctoral student of astrophysics at SISSA. ?Analysing
the rotation curves of 153 galaxies, principally the ?classical? spiral kind, they
obtained an empirical relationship between total gravitational acceleration of the
stars (observed) and the component which we would observe in the presence of
sole ordinary matter in the classical Newtonian theory. This empirical relationship
which seemed valid in all the galaxies they analysed and at any galactic radius,
motivated the explanation of gravitational acceleration without necessarily calling
into question dark matter, but involving for example theories of modified gravity
such as MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics).?

Di Paolo and her collaborators wanted to verify this relationship, analysing the
rotation curves of galaxies other than the ?classical? spiral kind: 72 galaxies with
low surface brightness (LSB) and 34 dwarf disc galaxies. They produced more
extended results, finding a relationship, which, besides total gravitational
acceleration and its ordinary component, also involves the galactic radius and the
morphology of the galaxies.

?We have studied the relationship between total acceleration and its
ordinary component in 106 galaxies, obtaining different results from those
that had been previously observed,? explains Paolo Salucci, professor of
astrophysics at SISSA and one of the research authors. ?This not only
demonstrates the inexactness of the empirical relationship previously
described but removes doubts on the existence of dark matter in the
galaxies. Furthermore, the new relationship found could provide crucial
information on the understanding of the nature of this indefinite
component.?

[Silence]

I am guessing that the SISSA paper you gave links to managed to find some "inexactness" in the data that was put forth by the guys at this link - https://case.edu/think/spring2017/dark-matters.html#.XUutQkccXIU The SISSA paper doesn't claim to have "observed" any dark matter. They still seem to be "proving" its existence by inferring the existence of something that is causing the discrepancy in galaxy rotation, a discrepancy that led to the creation of a "place-holder" called dark matter. But there are ways to solve the problem other than the method used by McGaugh and Lelli in their paper, which used visible matter alone. The 28:15 - 31:02 portion of the Suspicious Observers video highlights a good candidate for the missing matter - nano-meter sized dust grains scattered throughout inter-galactic space, along with dust in plasma filaments that is being carried along by the electric currents that are hidden by the dusty plasma. HR4796A has a dust ring around it that has been one of the most well studied of its kind for years, and now they find a 1000 AU wide ring around it that they missed seeing for all those years. How much else are they missing elsewhere? From 31:03 - 34:28, there is an example given that shows how obvious it is that these filaments they are finding are carrying electricity. Ordered magnetic fields running perpendicular to the filaments and parallel to each other. The 45:52 - 49:20 section highlights a problem that is similar to the dust ring that went unobserved for years. That would be the pitiful 5% success rate of measuring the electric current in Enceladus' plumes. That is the same as a 95% failure rate. Instead of inventing something like dark matter, maybe we can get better at measuring what is already there? Can you try to watch the entire video and consider what is being presented?

[Silence]

Dark Matter takes another hit in the 2:50 to 3:17 portion here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYzkqbFU2n0 The 3:18 -3:40 portion deals with a common obstacle that electric/plasma universe proponents have to deal with. A lot of assumptions are built into many of the models used by astronomers, and then those models are used as evidence to argue against competing theories. The following quote is from the paper referenced in the video which can be found here - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.02301.pdf

In the era of the exploitation and the preparation of large stellarsurveys (Gaia, APOGEE, 4MOST, WEAVE), of the detection of gravitational waves mostly originating from dense regions like the cores of clusters (Ligo,LISA), and in an always more holistic view of galaxy formation (HARMONI, Euclid, LSST?), a complete theory on the formation and evolution of clusters is needed to interpret the on-going and forthcoming data avalanche. In this context, the community carries an effort to model the aspects of star cluster formation and evolution in galactic and even cosmological context. However, it is not always easy to understand the caveats and the shortcuts taken in theories and simulations, and their implications on the conclusions drawn. I take the opportunity of this document to highlight three of these topics and discuss why some shortcuts taken by the community are, or could be, misleading.

[Silence]

For a few years now the team at the SAFIRE project have been tiptoeing around claims to have produced the transmutation of elements and nuclear fusion in their plasma chamber. This video - https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2019/09/02/special-feature-safire-project-2019-update/ contains a definite statement that they have transmutation of elements going on, and by using thermodynamic coding they have had the chamber produce the same amount of heat at 7% power input as there should be at 100% input. I haven't had time to watch the whole video yet, so I don't know if they used the "f" word (fusion), but there is something going on in the chamber that is producing extra energy, more than was put in by quite a margin. (6:45 - 15:00) The mix of inorganic transmutated elements found in the chamber matches pretty closely what they find in interstellar space. (31:04 - 32:08) In the 41:08 - 42:10 section they discuss the possibility of using some form of their plasma chamber to possibly deal with radioactive waste. They say that the process has been done, but don't say how fast the radioactive decay will take place, so there's no way to know if this will be practical. But they say they are going to keep working on it, so it does show promise. A lot of progress, with more to follow I'm guessing. For now, it looks like they have achieved their goal of re-creating a model of a star (our sun) in a plasma chamber. The acronym SAFIRE stands for Stellar Atmospheric Function In Regulation Experiment.

[Silence]

The 1:56 - 3:06 portion of this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh0d9EwjkAo spells out more trouble for the big bang theory and more evidence pointing to a plasma/electric paradigm.

[Silence]

The 3:44 - 4:17 part of this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqMqfXYMy58 points out another indication that the various theories about black holes are kaput.

[Silence]

The 4:20 - 5:26 portion of this video has a couple of building blocks stacked on top of each other, both of which point to plasma, magnetism, and electric current as the players responsible for organizing galaxies - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InI-eDkzP5c

[Silence]

This video documents more of the problems that are causing what even mainstream scientists are calling "a crisis in cosmology". The first part deals with discrepencies in determining how fast the universe is expanding (maybe it isn't expanding). The 5:37 - 11:09 section is on the sudden transformation of several dim galaxies into quasars in a matter of months, when this is thousands of times faster than the standard model of physics allows. The last section from 11:10 on deals with the synchronization of galaxies over millions, or in one case, a billion, light years. The quote found on the screen at the 12:12 mark is quite appropriate. It is amazing how fast so many of the enigmas vexing physicists and cosmologists disappear if an electrical perspective is allowed for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myMNSThwxD8

[Silence]

From 2:27 to 4:51, this video blew my mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVj18slGYJs :dizzy:

[Silence]

Andrew Hall has done a lot of very interesting videos on "electric geology". It is a fascinating subject and scary too, since in an electric universe, conditions can change very rapidly. The "uniformitarian" paradigm that Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin championed and got widely accepted has blinded us to a lot of evidence to the truth that has been "hiding in plain sight". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrxlqWPWgzw

[Silence]

I haven't posted here for quite some time, mainly because of the heavy nature of the picture that I began to realize has been slowly piecing together. I hate to be the bearer of unpleasant tidings, but truth is truth and the sooner one starts preparing to face it, the less will be the shock. One of the things that brought home the reality of serious problems to come was the "cosmic disaster" video that suspiciousobservers put out a while back. The main mechanism behind the cosmic disaster they speak of are the effects that ripples in the "galactic current sheet" have on the sun and our solar system when we encounter one every 10,000 years or so. The existence of a rippled "current sheet" rotating outward from our sun is well known and is called the "heliospheric current sheet". There is now evidence that the Milky Way has a similar structure along its plane of rotation. And there is also evidence that encountering ripples in this current sheet causes our sun to discharge somewhere between a mega-flare to micro-nova range, with a whole host of unheard of changes taking place as a result. I don't agree with some of the philosophy espoused at the Thunderbolts Project website, but they have been working along the same lines as suspiciousobservers, and the evidence that they are constantly documenting on the electrical nature of our universe is being confirmed over and over again on a nearly daily basis. The video link below is to one of their latest presentations that poses one of the biggest problems to date for "mainstream" cosmology. We have been lulled into a false sense of security by the "uniformitarian/gradualism" scientific paradigm that was adopted back in the 1700's. This paradigm states that the natural processes we see at work today have always been working in the same fashion, i.e. extremely slowly and in a uniform relation to each other, and that dramatic changes to the cosmos take millions and billions of years. This video points out several lines of evidence that fly in the face of uniformitarianism. "Impossibly fast" quasar formation and equally rapid disappearance is a telltale sign that the big bang theory and uniformitarianism are in their death throes. The video quotes mainstream scientists likening the quasars blinking on and off to someone turning a light switch on and off. Too bad the light bulb of their understanding has not switched on yet. They are still trying to pound their new observations into a "black hole" mold. Electricity works way faster than gravity, and it easily explains the recent observations that have astronomers and their theories in a tail spin. For a long time, "science" has been pitted against "religion" and the bible, but most scientists and most people who read the bible alike would be surprised at how many of the things found written about there have an electrical component, including changes to people's consciousness. Rationality and reason are not going to be enough in the Day of the Lord, and all the evidence shows that is where we are headed. https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2020/07/31/black-hole-or-cosmic-light-switch-space-news/

[Silence]

I wanted to share a video that utilizes electric universe principles as an alternative explanation for the procession of the equinox and its anomalies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdLxP-w1LGg

[Silence]

It's been a while since I heard about any big news on the "electric universe front" but in the last week or so there have been three items that stood out to me. The first is found in the 1:24 - 3:29 portion of this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MuJdsgf7k8 which adds a lot of "normal matter" to the galactic rotation problems that the standard model has yet to explain. Another - https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2021/04/03/gareth-samuel-halton-arp-quasar-model-verified-thunderbolts/ is a case where there is a lot of new evidence available, but the conclusions drawn from it depend on the viewpoint you start out with. And the third is like a broken record that keeps repeating the same thing over and over. It shows what happens when scientists are allowed to patch up the standard model with more and more "placeholders" like the "new force that we didn't know about" spoken of in the 4:00 to 4:15 portion of this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWSYPFWepew It makes one wonder if they will ever consider whether their model is wrong, along with all the placeholders.