Astronomy, Chemistry, Heresies, Metaphysics, Science
comments 36

The Electric Universe Heresy

Globes exchanging electrical discharge in an Electric Universe

In this groundbreaking paper Wal Thornhill introduces a new Theory of Everything: The Electric Universe. Set aside everything you think you know about all things great and small because the ideas presented here overturn it all. Was there a big bang? Not likely. Einstein’s Relativity? Doesn’t hold up. Is the Sun a thermonuclear fusion reactor which will eventually run out of fuel and burn out? Nope. Are there black holes? No such thing. What about dark matter and dark energy? Forget about that nonsense and start learning about the science of the 21st century. “. . .the Electric Universe is the only coherent cosmology that has correctly predicted and explained discoveries in the space age.” For example, Thornhill specifically predicted the unexpected results of the Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1 in October 2001, almost four years before the event. He was alone in successfully predicting what would be seen beneath the clouds of Saturn’s moon Titan.

The SAFIRE sun confirms the Electric Universe hypothesis that the Sun (and all stars for that matter) are not thermonuclear phenomena after all, but in fact fundamentally electrical in nature. Based on cutting-edge research, the SAFIRE team is developing a new, clean energy, nuclear-plasma reactor, which will not only be able to produce clean energy, but is expected to be able to clean up nuclear waste.

The Electric Sun Experiment

In 1972 an article in an obscure journal caught my eye. It was written by engineer Ralph Juergens from Flagstaff, Arizona. He wrote: 

I can find no way to state this diplomatically, so let me be blunt: The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun’s energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun.1Ralph Juergens. “Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastorphism.” Pensee. Fall 1972. p. 9.

Ralph Juergens

By attending to all of the most obvious features seen on the Sun; the photospheric granules, spicules, sunspots, chromosphere and corona, Juergens produced a detailed engineer’s model of an electrically powered Sun that seemed to account logically and simply for all the phenomena. The fixed belief that stars are isolated bodies in space, demanding internal thermonuclear energy to power them for billions of years, has resulted in untold waste in astrophysics and nuclear energy research.

In 2012 experienced Canadian engineer Montgomery Childs proposed an experiment to be done independently to test Juergens’ electric sun model. He said he could “find no disparities” in the model, which is unusual. Looking at the night sky, the process had to be simple and well-controlled. Otherwise the sky would look like the fourth of July. So was born the SAFIRE (Stellar Atmospheric Function in Regulation Experiment) Project. As the name might suggest, it was designed to mimic the critical features of the Sun and its plasma environment in a continuous and easily controlled way. Meanwhile the thermonuclear Sun model remains theoretical and unpredictive. Attempts to produce fusion energy like the Sun on Earth have got nowhere. The field of fusion energy is chronically unstable and unproductive.

In 2019 at the Electric Universe UK conference at Bath University, the SAFIRE experiment was declared a success. The SAFIRE team did a number of high-energy experiments, which met predictions such as transmutation of elements and extremely high energy levels, but also showed the potential for remediation of radioactive waste. The Sun’s energy is produced right before our eyes by electrical energy from the galaxy producing benign nuclear energy in the Sun’s atmosphere. Sunspots are dark simply because the body of the Sun is cooler beneath the photosphere! And as uncommon sense suggests, all bright stars continually produce heavy elements, albeit in their atmospheres! So the recent discovery by ESA’s Cluster mission of highly ionised iron atoms in the solar wind is not a surprise.2Iron is everywhere in Earth’s vicinity.” Physics.org.

The Electric Universe

The Electric Universe returns to the highly successful classical method of doing science in the 19th century. It adheres to the principles of physics and aims at simplification, in stark distinction to the explosion of imaginary particles and unexplained forces of the last century. For example, the Electric Universe has a single force operating in the universe—the electric force. Magnetism, gravity and the nuclear force are various effects produced by charged, orbitally structured protons and electrons in response to an applied electric force. All matter in the universe is connected by the electric force. And since the electric force can be either attractive or repulsive, there is a balance possible between the force of cohesion and the force that keeps things apart. The universe is in balance. The electric force is instantaneous, which is essential for coherence and stability of orbital systems on all scales. Time is universal. This real-time connectedness of the Electric Universe allows us to understand ourselves and our place in the universe more clearly. We are not isolated and alone in this ‘conscious’ universe of unknown age and extent. We are all subtly connected to each other, the Earth and the Electric Universe.

Electric universe cosmology is both simple and elegant. It could begin to be taught in primary school. Its history is inspiring. In the mid-1800s to early-1900s Kristian Birkeland was performing his electrical ‘little Earth,’ or Terrella, experiments in Norway, and Gauss and Weber were discovering the electrical structure of matter. Weber predicted the orbital structure of the atom, based on his generalized electrodynamic law, about 40 years before J. J. Thomson discovered the electron and produced his ‘plum pudding’ model of the atom. Later, Ernest Rutherford discovered its heavy nucleus and Neils Bohr produced an orbital structure. More than a century later, physicists have still not learned the lesson and have a structureless ‘plum pudding’ model of subatomic particles, filled with fanciful quarks that “wink in to and out of existence!”

Today, physicists labour under misconceptions about the nature of matter and the concepts of space and time; the relationship between matter, mass and gravity; the real nature of stars and galaxies; and the size and age of the universe. So, when astrophysicists turn to particle physicists to solve their intractable problems and particle physicists use it as an excuse for squandering billions of dollars on nonsensical particle experiments, few will admit that both fields are in crisis. It truly is the blind leading the blind. Their mysteries are of their own making. 

How has this situation arisen? In the 20th century, technologists perfected wireless communication and computers and got man into space while fundamental science dug itself deeper into its own black hole of complication, illogicality and pseudo-science. The principal cause has been the usurping, since Einstein, of natural philosophy and physics by mathematicians. Einstein, perhaps to his credit, remained skeptical about his contribution.3In a personal letter to Professor Solovine, dated 28 March 1949: “You can imagine that I look back on my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.” Quoted in B. Hoffman. Albert Einstein – Creator and Rebel. New York: Viking Press, 1972. Meanwhile, it served the egos of his followers to consecrate his work and treat dissent as blasphemy. Future historians of science will judge the last century harshly. School children in future will know the answer to the basic question, What is the principal force of the universe? as certainly as they presently know the answer to the question, What is the shape of the Earth? They will tell you that gravity itself is a type of electric force. It is an Electric Universe. 

Wonderful introduction to concepts presented in this paper.

Big Nothing Cosmology

Presently, the big bang picture is illogical, incoherent and hope-less. We are led to believe that we are isolated by the immensity of time and space on an atom of rock, circling a dust mote of a star. We got here by a miraculous creation ex nihilo event, followed by a random process of explosions, collisions and accretions (and this in an expanding universe). We are told that life itself is the result of a meaningless sequence of random events. None of these processes are understood. This hasn’t stopped the mathematicians. Until there is a simple, testable theory that can explain the natural spiral shape of galaxies without invoking unseen matter or strange forces, scientists cannot claim they understand gravity or that gravity rules the universe.

The twin pillars of big bang cosmology—Einstein’s theories of relativity and quantum theory—are incompatible, so we cannot use them as a foundation for a real model of the universe. We must discard so-called modern physics and return to the classical physics of a century ago. This, perhaps, is the greatest hurdle—to discard our training and prejudices and approach the problem with a beginner’s mind. 

Clearly, to provide a sensible alternative theory we must address the problems with our present understanding of both extremes of scale, the subatomic and galactic. This paper outlines the conceptual possibilities as simply as possible under a number of headings in an attempt to correct our seriously distorted view of the universe.

The Origin of Mass in the Electrical Structure of Matter

The something absolutely fundamental that is missing in our explanation of gravity and quantum behavior is the electrical structure of matter. Here we are not talking about atoms. We must go down one more level and propose that all subatomic particles, particularly the electron and proton, are orbital systems (like atoms) of smaller electric charges of opposite polarity that sum to the charge on that particle. This orbital model was an indispensible insight of the great German physicist Wilhelm Weber in the middle of the 19th century.

Neutrons do not exist as stable particles in atoms (see later). They are a transient coupling of an electron and proton formed to avoid the powerful electric forces in atomic nuclei and active galactic nuclei—an essential requirement in building heavy elements and giving birth to quasars and new companion galaxies from active galactic nuclei.

The electron is not a fundamental, point-like particle. It must have structure to have angular momentum and a preferred magnetic orientation, known as ‘spin.’ There must be orbital motion of charges within the electron to generate its magnetic dipole. The transfer of electrical energy between the charges in their orbits must be resonant and instantaneous to conserve energy and for the electron to be a stable particle. Therefore Wilhelm Weber’s presently dismissed electrodynamic law in fact applies. The same argument applies to its positively charged partner, the proton. This sub-subatomic model satisfies Einstein’s view that there must be some lower level of structure in matter to cause resonant quantum effects. Moreover Weber’s law, being instantaneous, removes the ‘spookiness’ of the connection seen between widely separated (so-called ‘entangled’) particles that Einstein complained about.

We must have a workable concept of the structure of matter that satisfies the observation that inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent. First, gravity must operate at the subatomic level because Newton’s law refers to mass and not composition or charge on matter. The feather and the bowling ball fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum. Second, Isaac Newton wisely recognized the significance of his simple but most important spinning bucket of water experiment, where the water rises up the wall of the bucket against Earth’s gravity. It has been described as one of the simplest and most important of all experiments performed by Newton. Simply stated in a review4Marco M. Capria. “Review of Andre K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics.” Apeiron. Montreal 1999. p. 285. of the seminal work of Prof. André Assis’ Relational Mechanics5Andre K. T. Assis. Relational Mechanics. Apeiron. Montreal. pp. 51-8.:

Take a bucket filled with water, and set it into rotation (for instance, by attaching it by a rope to the ceiling, twisting the rope and then letting it unwind); you shall see that as soon as the motion of the bucket is communicated to the water, the surface of the liquid will become curved (as a paraboloid), and curved it will remain if the bucket is stopped all of a sudden. This means that the water ‘feels’ the rotation independently of its relative motion with respect to the bucket. So this rotation must be regarded, in Newton’s opinion, as relative to absolute space [i.e. as absolute motion, emphasis added].

Marco M. Capria

Newton wrote:

The effects which distinguish absolute from relative motion are, the forces of receding from the axis of rotation. For there are no such forces in a circular motion purely relative. . .

Isaac Newton. “Scholium.” Principia.

This should have been sufficient to discard Einstein’s relativity! His principle of the equivalence of his ‘inertial frames of reference’ has the effect of making arbitrary moving observers the centres of their own individual universes, which is nonsense. To do physics requires absolute standards of measurement, not relative standards. If further argument were necessary, Einstein went on in his general relativity to discard the indispensable force of gravity! (more on this below).

Sir Isaac Newton and the Electric Universe Heresy
Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727)
Einstein by chalkboard
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Newton vs. Einstein It is critical to note that Newton was very careful to warn theorists away from mistaking what we call “time, space, place, and motion” with their true existence because physics concerns itself exclusively with “measured quantities.” Specifically he says: “those violate the accuracy of language, which ought to be kept precise, who interpret these words [time, space, place, and motion] for the measured quantities. Nor do those less defile the purity of mathematical and philosophical truths, who confound real quantities with their relations [analogies] and sensible measures.” In other words, we do not know true realities or even true measures because all we have at hand are heuristics, and we must therefore be careful not to confuse any clock with real time, or any measure with real space, or shape with real place—all issues he discusses in his definitions (and first principles) at the start of the Principia. Einstein falls directly into this fallacy when he mistakes the measures of relative time for actual time (which Newton called “duration”). Newton’s duration allows for simultaneity, whereas Einstein’s distorted spacetime scrambles reality and makes simultaneous action impossible—an argument ad absurdum that violates reality. Simultaneity is essential for universal coherence. 

Magnetism and Gravity 

Coulomb’s electrical force law is similar to Newton’s force law of gravity, which provides a fundamental clue. Gravitational mass plays the same role as electrical charges but it is independent of the charge on a subatomic particle. In 1992 Prof. André Assis of the State University of Campinas in Brazil published a paper showing how the works of the great experimentalists of the 19th century, particularly Wilhelm Weber, could explain magnetism, gravity and their magnitudes in terms of charge neutral electric dipole interactions! 

In conclusion we may say that in this model of generalized Weber electrodynamics we obtain: electrostatics as a zeroth-order effect, magnetism and Faraday’s induction as a 2nd-order effect, gravitation as a 4th-order effect, and inertia and precession of the perihelion as a 6th-order electromagnetic effect.6Andre K. T. Assis. “Deriving gravitation from electromagnetism.” Can. J. Phys. 70, 1992. pp. 330-40.

Prof. André Assis

Assis noted that the model could also apply to the electron and proton since they exhibit inertia. The orders of magnitude of the forces match observations, which is a remarkable fact.

The noted physicist, Fritz London, who had developed the theory of molecular bonding by the atomic electric dipole force, contemplated an electric dipole model of gravity. Like gravity as we experience it, the London force is only attractive because the electric dipoles can rotate into alignment like bar magnets on a glass tabletop. This induced-dipole to induced-dipole electrical attraction is the force that permits matter to condense into liquids and solids.

Similarly, on the subatomic scale, the Electric Universe model of structured electrons and protons has the gravitational force due to the distortion of the orbits of sub-subatomic charges orbiting within the electrons and protons in atoms to form subatomic electric dipoles, which, being free to rotate, line up radially. The orbital distortion (see diagram below) is then due simply to the offset of the heavy nucleus inside each atom of a body toward the center of mass of that body. Gravity is produced by the sum of the radially aligned subatomic electric dipoles formed by all the electrons and protons within a celestial body. The gravitational force depends only on mass because it is a subatomic phenomenon. And as a subatomic phenomenon, gravity cannot be shielded electrically. So, the inertia of a body is due to its gravitational interaction with all other bodies in the universe. The inertial mass is equivalent to the gravitational mass.

Gravity in the Electric Universe
Gravity in the Electric Universe

Newton’s universal constant of gravitation, or G, is neither universal nor constant. It is a dependent variable because it has a dimension including mass. G also depends upon stored electrical energy, or charge distribution, within the gravitationally induced spherical electret (or surface charge) of a celestial body. Therefore, we cannot deduce the density or composition of a celestial object by measuring its gravity! For example, comet nuclei are observed to be rocky with sharply featured geology and no surface ice—dismissing the dirty snowball model.

Comets are “Rosetta Stones” for the Electric Sun model.7W. Thornhill. Electric Comets & Asteroids. Changes in their surface charge gives rise to rotational disturbances and so-called “non-gravitational” acceleration. Moving remotely in the electric field of the Sun, comets have plenty of time to charge more negatively. As they accelerate in the inner solar system toward the Sun the rapidly increasing electric stress on the comet causes a plasma discharge—including a huge plasma sheath (coma) and well-collimated cold cathode discharge jets. Charge exchange with the solar wind changes the mass and moment of inertia of the comet causing unexplained gravitational accelerations and rotational anomalies. Mineral particles and atoms, including oxygen, are sputtered electrically from the surface. There is no “non-gravitational” force on the nucleus. The oxygen atoms combine with protons from the solar wind to give the misleading OH signatures attributed conventionally to water ice from the comet nucleus.8B. J. R. Davidsson et al.. “Nucleus properties of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 estimated from non-gravitational force modelling.” Icarus 187, 2007. p. 312. The water production rate falls off “around 30 days pre-perihelion, and continuing for the next 50 days,” which is not expected in the icy comet model but may match the electrical model since it coincides with the minimum radial acceleration of the negative comet with respect to the positive Sun.

Wilhelm Weber photo
Wilhelm Weber (1804-1891)

Wilhelm Eduard Weber worked with Carl Friedrich Gauss as his assistant and collaborator. With Weber’s help, Gauss invented accurate measuring of the intensity of magnetic fields; and to this day, we measure the strength of magnets in units of gauss. In 1870 Weber—before J. J. Thomson’s 1897 conception of the electron—posited dipolar (positive and negative) electrical particles attracting and repelling each other both in the direction of their flow and—if we picture flows along two wires—laterally or ‘transversely’ between the wires. In contrast, the predominant view today is that the particles are influenced by the field (or wiring, as it is usually understood) and the wiring influences the particles, but the particles do not influence each other. It is arguable that the electron radius calculation and the electron-proton mass ratio were implicit in his work.

Dipole Gravity and Cosmology

Notice that the same electro-gravitational pole faces outward in all celestial bodies. So they repel one another gravitationally as if they were particles of the same charge polarity. The repulsive gravitational force on the Earth from the rest of the universe is sufficient to accelerate the 6 x 1024 kilogram Earth by 60 km/sec every 6 months as it circles the repulsing Sun. Gravity is a real force.

Repulsive gravitation and the Electric Universe
Repulsive Gravitational Force

Of course repulsive dipole gravity forbids the formation of galaxies, stars and planets by gravitational accretion, mergers and collisions. It ensures balance and order in the non-expanding Electric Universe. The father of plasma cosmology, Hannes Alfvén, considered gravitational systems “the ashes of former electromagnetic systems.” That is why gravity applies only inside the Sun’s plasma heliosheath, or ‘heliosphere,’ which shields us from the local galactic electromagnetic environment. It does not work for electromagnetic galaxies.

Hannes Alfven photo
Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)

Hannes Olof Gosta Alfvén was a Swedish electrical engineer and physicist who provided many of the fundamental theories of plasma cosmology and won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics. Alfvén contributed our knowledge and understanding of the aurorae, the Van Allen radiation belts, the effects of cosmic magnetism on the Earth, and the behaviour of plasma in the Milky Way.

Intrinsic Redshift and the Real Universe

The observational evidence for repulsive gravity was assembled by the ‘modern day Galileo,’ Dr. Halton Arp.9Halton Arp. “The Observational Impetus for Le Sage Gravity Pushing Gravity: New perspective on Le Sage’s Theory of gravity.” Apeiron. Montreal, 2002. The notion of ‘pushing gravity’ has been around since Isaac Newton but has struggled to find a sensible physical explanation—until now, when gravity is finally understood. Arp showed the visible universe is much smaller than cosmologists think because he found physical associations between high-redshift quasars and low-redshift active galaxies. In one fine example, the quasar is in front of the galaxy!10G. Burbidge et al. “The Discovery of a High Redshift X-ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319.” So redshift is largely an intrinsic effect in the young quasar rather than a Doppler effect from recession at high velocity. Edwin Hubble was right to believe the expanding universe hypothesis implausible.11Edwin Hubble: “on the basis of the evidence now available, a choice seems to be presented, as once before in the days of Copernicus, between a small finite universe, and a sensibly infinite universe plus a new principle of nature. And, as before, the choice may be determined by the attribute of simplicity.” “The Problem of the Expanding Universe.” Science 95, 1942. pp. 212-215. The “new principle of nature” he needed was a full understanding of redshift. Quasars are not isolated objects near the edge of the visible universe. They are ejected from the cores of active galaxies. Their redshift decreases and brightness increases with distance from their parent. High redshift and faintness are a measure of the youthfulness of a quasar and not its distance from us.12Halton Arp. “Seeing Red: Redshifts. Cosmology and Academic Science.” Apeiron. Montreal 1998. What we see is Hubble’s “small, finite universe.” The big bang never happened!

Significantly, Arp also found the redshifted light from quasars is quantised—it decreases with distance from its parent in discrete steps, which proves the effect is intrinsic to the matter in the quasar. The nonsense of quantum phenomena only occurring at the atomic scale is apparent here. 

The Electric Universe, following plasma cosmologists, has quasars born in pairs as oppositely directed beams of neutrons, escaping in ultra-high-speed bursts along the axis of the active galaxy’s toroidal dense plasmoid nucleus.13See Eric J. Lerner. The Big Bang Never Happened. Simon & Schuster, 1991. p. 244 ff. As the neutrons decay into electrons and protons they begin to slow in the galactic magnetic field and form condensed matter with gravitational polarization and mass. As Arp observed, the quasar increases in mass and slows down. The light electrons are slowed more than the protons by the parent galaxy’s magnetic field, so the quasar begins life electron-deficient. The electrical polarization within the quasar steadily increases with the arrival of electrons from the galactic jet ‘umbilical cord’ and their recombination with protons to form hydrogen atoms. As the energy state (electrical polarization) of the electrons and protons in the quasar atoms increases, the energies (masses) of one or the other will reach a quantum threshold (like an atom) and jump to a new resonant state. This will cause the emitted spectrum of the atoms to increase in frequency—that is, the redshift to decrease—in a quantum transition.

Quasars in the Electric Universe
Quasars in the Electric Universe

Based on this model, the surprising, alleged ‘accelerating expansion of the universe’ concept is invalid. Supernovae Type 1a cannot be used as ‘standard candles’ because their intrinsic luminosity is dependent upon the power available from their host galaxy; the higher the redshift, the lower the power and luminosity, which has given rise to the erroneous theory of an accelerating expansion of the universe and the introduction of another ad hoc ‘fix’—mysterious ‘dark energy.’ The visible universe is not expanding. Arp found it to be relatively static and balanced, which is why he reasoned that gravity is cosmically a repulsive force.

Conventional redshift diagram
Redshift

The above diagram shows the conventional view of redshift as a measure of distance from the observer. It explains that as the universe expands (a result of the Big Bang at the bottom of the diagram), light is stretched. This stretch is called redshift. The principle is that red is the longest visible wavelength of light. So any colour of light that moves toward red on the spectrum of colour would be considered redshifted even if it is not truly red. The opposite of redshift is blueshift. The Electric Universe contends that class of supernovae used as ‘standard candles’ to measure the expansion of the universe is fundamentally flawed. As Dr. Halton Arp discovered, redshift is an indication of a quasar’s age and its relationship to its parent galaxy. It follows that the universe is not expanding after all and that there was no Big Bang. It is worth noting that the Big Bang hypothesis was first proposed in 1927 by the Roman Catholic priest and cosmologist Father Georges Lemaitre. He saw the event as “the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of creation” (see S. Singh. The Big Bang. London: Fourth Estate, 2004).

Electrical Formation of Celestial Bodies

Plasma cosmology shows spiral galaxies and stars are accreted and formed by powerful long-range electromagnetic forces generated by intergalactic Birkeland current filaments threading the visible universe.14https://www.plasma-universe.com/galaxy-formation/, Electrical Birthing of Stars. It is such filaments between galaxies that produce the observed cosmic web. Gravity cannot do that. 

The Electric Universe simply states that stars and planets are formed at the same time and in the same electromagnetic accretion process, along ‘interstellar lightning bolts’ within molecular clouds. Inside the Milky Way, 

Herschel has delivered spectacular vistas of cold gas clouds lying near the plane of the Milky Way, revealing intense, unexpected activity. The dark, cool region is dotted with stellar factories, like pearls on a cosmic string.15ESA Report, 2 October 2009.

ESA Report, 2 October 2009.

In addition, secondary bodies are formed by electrical expulsion from stars undergoing sudden electrical stress in which the only recourse to restore equilibrium is to expel bulk charged matter in a nova or flaring event. That is generally the origin of close orbiting ‘hot Jupiters,’ and the many satellites of more distant gas giant planets in the process of capture of a gas giant by a star. ‘Accretion disks’ are generally ‘expulsion disks.’ For example, the ephemeral icy rings of Saturn signify Saturn’s recent electrical capture by the Sun, causing an expulsion event from the planet. This gains profound importance when it was subsequently found that the water on Earth matches that found at Saturn!16The water in Saturn’s rings and satellites is like that on Earth.” Phys.org. 3/12/2018. The mystery of the origin of Earth’s abundance of water may finally be solved.

The electrical birth process also explains the mystery of rotation of galaxies, stars and planets. Birkeland currents are a twisted pair of current filaments, a configuration familiar to electrical engineers for reducing electromagnetic radiation, or energy loss, from wire pairs. Accreted matter spirals in toward the axis of the twin filaments to form a single rotating body, or a pair of close-orbiting bodies. “The origin of binary stars has long been one of the central problems of astronomy.”17The Origin of Binary Stars.” Phys.org. 21/8/2017. It has been found that protostars and young stars are more likely to be found in binary pairs inside “elongated core structures” strung at intervals along a cosmic Birkeland current channel inside a molecular cloud. Similarly, interplanetary Birkeland current “thunderbolts” during close encounters may form smaller binaries in dusty plasma that may fuse together to form the classic dumb-bell shape, seen in many comets and asteroids. And the puzzling edge-on ‘boxy/peanut’ shaped central bulge of some spiral galaxies may be simply explained using this model. Gravitational accretion theory doesn’t work.

Birkeland currents central to the Electric Universe
Birkeland Currents

Left to right, top to bottom in the above image: (1) the galactic network of Birkeland currents; (2) the internal directional turning of Birkeland currents displaying counter rotation of layers; (3) the north pole of Saturn displaying layers that when viewed in motion, display counter rotation (see NASA footage); (4) the north pole of Jupiter displaying similar counter rotation (see NASA footage here as well). The foremost expert on Birkeland currents is Donald Scott. For an excellent introduction to the subject, check out Scott’s model here.

Watch this video to better understand Birkeland currents and our solar system.

Electric Stars

Stars form “like pearls on a cosmic string” along Birkeland current channels in molecular clouds. The electromagnetic accretion process known as Marklund convection18G. T. Marklund. “Plasma Convection in Force-Free Magnetic Fields as a Mechanism for Chemical Separation in Cosmical Plasmas.” Nature 277, 1979. p. 370-1. separates the elements by increasing ionization potential, radially from the current channel axis. The result is the heavier elements are coolest and found closest to the axis while helium and hydrogen form the outermost atmosphere. The hypothetical extreme conditions for thermonuclear energy generation in the core of a star are not fulfilled. Planets are formed in the same process. The distinction is simply due to a body’s mass and response to the ambient plasma electrical environment. The stars and planets grow in mass and are eventually left behind as their electrical umbilical cord snakes about.19A. M. Stutzl and A. Gould. “Slingshot mechanism in Orion: Kinematic evidence for ejection of protostars by filaments.” Astronomy & Astrophysics 590, A2, 2016.

However, the stars continue to act as a focus for ‘dark mode’ current from ubiquitous lower energy Birkeland current filaments, like those traced near our solar system by their radiation at radio frequencies.20G. L. Verschuur. “Neutral Hydrogen Filaments at High Galactic Latitudes.” Astrophys Space Sci 185, 1991. pp. 305-32.

Note that the mass of a body cannot tell us anything about its composition since mass is a property of matter, not the amount of matter. Mass is an energetic variable, according to E=mc2. The electric charge on the surface of a celestial body will contribute to the strength of the dipole field within the body and so affect its gravitational mass. For example, the existence on Earth of megafauna and megaflora in the past signals that the Earth has had a dramatic change in its electrical environment in the geologically recent past. It has been calculated on the basis of the cross-sectional strength of bone and muscle that for those giants to exist and be fleet-footed the Earth’s former gravity must have been as low as a third or a quarter of today’s strength.21T. Holden. “Do dinosaurs pose a gravity problem? Each planet in the solar system has its own history. It is obviously not a graded system formed by primordial accretion.

Newton’s law of gravity, in the repulsive sense, applies in interplanetary space beyond their gravitationally attractive ‘spheres of influence.’ Small bodies within those spheres of influence are dominated by the attractive polarization induced by the planet. We are simply attracted like iron filings to the nearest pole—the Earth’s surface. We are intimately connected as part of the Earth.

But perhaps the most confronting idea is that dipolar gravity, with the same pole facing inwards, will tend to produce hollow shells rather than condensed bodies with dense cores. So, there are no super-dense celestial objects like white dwarfs, neutron stars or black holes. A shell model of the Earth makes simple sense of deep earthquake data.22Jan Lamprecht. Hollow Planets: A Feasibility Study of Possible Hollow Worlds, 2013. The standard model of the Earth’s interior requires ad hoc inner and outer cores with special properties in a complicated attempt to explain seismic anomalies. Meanwhile, it has been found that the so called ‘core-mantle boundary’ is much rougher than the Earth’s surface. This is to be expected since matter will fall upwards to the inner surface during the Earth’s formation. And there are no internal erosive forces.

Of course, hollowness would also contribute to the low mass and calculated low densities of some celestial bodies. The Sun’s mean density is only 25 percent of the Earth’s mean density (but its photosphere is not a surface, it is the top of the Sun’s ionosphere). The planet Saturn would float on water. Comets have rocky and sandy surfaces, as shown by the Deep Impact experiment and comet 67P, yet they exhibit very low densities. Significantly, researchers recently found “sand-like material under the rocky surface of asteroid Ryugu” when they fired a 2-kilogram copper ball at the asteroid at 7,200 km/h.”23Initial findings of artificial impact on asteroid Ryugu.” Phys.org. 20 March 2020.

The neutron and the nucleus

We observe that a neutron combines the charges from a proton and an electron in a relatively long-lived metastable resonance outside the atomic nucleus, which decays in minutes. Its decay must have a cause and seems to involve an interaction with a neutrino. But we have no evidence that neutrons exist in the nucleus. There seems no binding energy within nuclei that might provide the known needed binding energy of neutrons.

The Electric Universe model has only one force—the electric force. So neutrons cannot exist in the nuclei of atoms. Atomic nuclei are composed of protons held together by a sufficient number of electrons to occupy a geometric structure where the repulsive force between protons is offset by the proximity of the electrons between them such that the resultant force is attractive. The nucleus is made up of protons and shared electrons. It is a ‘structured atom model’ that is being investigated and shows great promise in understanding details of elemental isotopes, their stability and their chemistry.24See https://etherealmatters.org/sam There is no such object as a neutron star. Plasma cosmologists have explained the detailed signal from pulsing neutron stars in terms of electrical activity in a normal stellar magnetosphere.25K. R. Healy, A. L. Peratt. “Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment.” Astrophysics and Space Science 227. pp. 229-53.

A model for the neutrino and the essential æther

The famous equation, E = mc2, is an example where books and encyclopaedias slip unnoticed into referring to mass ‘m’ not as a phenomenon related to matter, but as matter itself. Yet this simple equation is telling us some profound truths that are fundamental for cosmology. They are—energy, mass and the speed of light are all attributes of matter.

This realization sweeps away the fog of modern metaphysics instantly. Mass depends on the energy of the matter. And the speed of light is not a universal constant because it is affected by the material medium it is passing through. Maxwell’s æther must be reinstated. The universe has a material medium, essential for the transmission of light. The ‘perfect vacuum’ doesn’t exist. And photons don’t exist because there can be no particle with zero mass.

Fundamentally, energy is bound up in the electromagnetic structure of matter. Einstein was wrong when he spoke in 1920, “according to the special theory of relativity, both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy.”26G. B. Jeffery, W. Perrett. “Sidelights on Relativity. Einstein A. Ether and the Theory of Relativity: An Address Delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.” ‘Energy’ remains undefined in physics because of the confusion. The Electric Universe defines energy as a measure of the motion of charged matter with respect to all other charged matter in the universe. Uncharged subatomic particles are included since they are composites of equal numbers of oppositely charged sub-particles.

Without matter there can be no ‘pure energy’ at the instant of the Big Bang or ‘vacuum energy’ afterwards. Matter cannot be annihilated. The term ‘antimatter’ is misleading and incorrect. The merging of a particle and its ‘anti-particle’ must result in the release of stored electromagnetic energy and the coalescence of the combined constituent sub-particles to form a collapsed, stable particle of vanishing internal energy, or mass. Such particles are called neutrinos. The process can be reversed if a neutrino receives sufficient resonant electromagnetic energy that it re-forms a particle and its mirror image particle. On this topic Dr. Halton Arp writes:

there can be no such thing as ‘new’ matter. So when we speak of creation of matter we do not mean matter coming into our universe from somewhere else (there is nowhere else) or from nothing. We must mean the transformation of previously existing mass-energy.27Halton Arp. “Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science.” Apeiron 1998. p. 239.

Halton Arp

Empty space is not empty. It is an æther of neutrinos. They are the sources of matter in the universe, awaiting the burst of gamma rays to open them to form the stuff of atoms. Being composed of orbiting charged sub-particles, neutrinos form the neutral dielectric ‘æther’ required by Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism. It is the medium through which the electric force is transferred directly via chains of electric dipoles.

The real nature of light

What is the real nature of light? It cannot be both a wave and a particle. Einstein’s special theory of relativity discarded the medium (æther) required by James Clerk Maxwell for the transmission of light. Einstein was confirmed in his view by the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, that experiment showed a residual, which can be explained by the æther being ‘dragged’ along by the rotating Earth. This was later confirmed by far more rigorous repeats of the experiment by Dayton Miller. The Dayton Miller story makes interesting reading. If it weren’t for the extraordinary power of self-delusion, commonsense would tell us that a wave can’t exist in nothing. Maxwell was right, light is a transverse electromagnetic wave moving through a dielectric medium, the æther. 

The universe is teeming with neutrinos. And since neutrinos are resonant orbiting systems of charge, like all matter, they will respond to the electric force by distorting to form an electric dipole aligned with the electric field. The speed of light in a vacuum may be seen as related to the moment of inertia of the neutrino in response to an alternating transverse electric force. 

What about the bending of starlight by the Sun, which discovery raised Einstein to megastar status? The residual found in the Michelson-Morley experiments shows that the Earth and all ponderable bodies ‘drag’ an æther ‘atmosphere’ along with them. The bending of starlight near the Sun is the effect expected of an extensive neutrino atmosphere held to the Sun by gravity. Neutrinos do, after all, have some mass. Light will be slowed in the denser medium—causing normal refraction or bending of light.

Michelson-Morley experiment deemed faulty by the Electric Universe

The Michelson-Morley Experiment is conventionally taken to prove the non-existence of the aether. Essentially the idea was to use the interference properties of light waves to produce a dimming and brightening of observed light. If one simply merges two rays of light travelling at the same speed, their wave patterns (imagine undulating waves) will be synchronized (i.e. their crests and troughs will align). This alignment will result in a brighter light. If, however, one ray in this scenario falls behind the other such that one’s trough converges with the other’s crest, an observable dimming will take place. The assumption of the Michelson-Morley Experiment was that the aether is a flowing current of some sort. If it flows, goes the reasoning, then it must carry along waves of light slower upstream, faster downstream and at another rate cross-stream. Since light speeds could only be measured on a two-way trip, Michelson set up an experiment with a semi-reflective mirror that would allow half the light of each of two rays to pass through at right angles to each other with the whole apparatus set upon a rotating table. See here for an animated view of the experiment. When turning the table, one should observe a dimming and brightening of the light due to the interference of the aether flow. Although this experiment was performed under various conditions, no such fluctuation was observed.

The light-speed non-barrier

We must give up the notion that the speed of light is a real speed barrier for the transfer of information. Light speed may seem fast on our puny scale, but on a cosmic scale it is glacial. Imposing such a speed limit renders the universe totally incoherent. Weber’s electrodynamics, which encompasses gravity, is instantaneous. There would be no stable atoms, planetary systems or galaxies if this were not so.

We have direct evidence of the superluminal action of the electric force, given that gravity is a longitudinal dipolar electric force. Indeed, Newton’s celebrated equation requires that gravity act instantly on the scale of the solar system. The Earth responds to the gravitational pull of the Sun where it is at the moment, not where the Sun was 8 minutes ago. Otherwise, the Earth and all other planets in the solar system would experience a torque and be slung into deep space within a few thousand years.

The coherent, real-time, Electric Universe

What about time? With all matter in the universe connected in real time through the electric force of gravity, time is universal. There can be no time distortion or time travel—something that common sense always told us. However, atomic clocks—our most accurate timepieces—are subject to shifts in resonant states based upon their energy. And with a real definition of energy we can see that the atomic clocks orbiting above the Earth will ‘tick’ at a different rate to those on the ground. Forget Einstein! All the engineers do for the Global Positioning Satellites (GPS) is to set their clocks on the ground to count a different number of ‘ticks’ in orbit so they keep time with those on the ground.

Electric Biology

If information about normal matter can be transferred in real-time, why not more subtle information required for coherence of complex living systems? Modern biology has no idea how living systems maintain coherent control throughout a body. Here we enter the field occupied by scientists like biologist Rupert Sheldrake, with his theory of morphic resonance; and the cellular biologist Bruce Lipton, with his ‘intelligence’ of the living cell residing in the receptors on the outer cell wall. We have a real science model to pursue the mind-body connection, the ‘subtle energy’ of living systems, memory and consciousness. The many taboo subjects for today’s micro-specialists may be opened up for investigation at last. This model argues for a coherent, interconnected, conscious universe.

The Bigger Picture

Electric Universe cosmology is an unprecedented scientific and cultural revolution. The arts, history and sciences are combined in a phenomenal and awe-inspiring panorama of the recent history of the Earth and humanity. Perhaps only the few humans who have witnessed Earth from space have felt the inspiration that such a perspective offers. On Christmas Eve 1968 the Apollo 8 spacecraft with astronauts Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and Bill Anders entered lunar orbit. At the beginning of the fourth orbit, their spacecraft was emerging from the far side of the moon when “Earthrise,” one of the most influential images in history, was taken. The image affected Anders who said later, “This is the only home we have and yet we’re busy shooting at each other, threatening nuclear war, and wearing suicide vests. It amazes me.” He gave up his religious beliefs because he could not imagine a judgemental deity up there “wondering whether Billy was a good boy yesterday?” 

This comment by Anders emphasises that we must first understand ourselves before we can understand the universe. And for our long-term survival we must understand the origin of our existential fear, which is at the heart of our irrational, destructive behaviour toward each other and the planet. A desperate need for order seems to drive modern big bang cosmology, which has returned to Pythagorean and Platonic mysticism and has nothing useful or even sensible to offer us. It seems significant that real science,28Bruce G. Charlton. Not Even Trying… The Corruption of Real Science. University of Buckingham Press. “modern research is incoherent, and therefore whatever masquerades as checking and testing is not merely irrelevant but actively misleading–merely an excuse for unendingly funding permanently inconclusive research.” the search for truth, was disrupted in the catharsis following the end of the insane First World War. The world was keen to escape the reality of the re-enacted apocalypse. Lately, I have discovered that the great European scientists of the 19th century, who were experimenting with electricity and magnetism, were close to a real, coherent understanding of gravity, magnetism, light, the atom, and the Electric Universe. Sadly, we have wasted a century or more.

The big bang has its origin in the creation myth of the splitting open of a primordial ‘cosmic egg.’  Historically we have the unexplained exploits of the planetary gods brandishing their apocalyptic weapon—the ‘thunderbolt of the gods.’ Why is there global accord about the planetary gods? Venus is always female; the beautiful princess with long flowing hair; or her alter-ego, the terrible Medusa monster with venomous serpentine hair. Mars is always male; the archetypal warrior hero who saves the beautiful princess from chaos monsters. He is scarred in battle. North American Indians called Mars “Scarface.” How can these dramatic stories about tiny moving specks of light in the night sky have come about? Such foundational questions never occur to today’s specialists who have been disciplined to believe in Newton’s clockwork solar system where ‘bad things’ only happened in an unfathomably remote past.

Paradoxically, religions are the most divisive feature of human existence. They provide no scientific answers but rather pose fundamental questions facing humanity. What is the origin of the Chicken Little fascination with the end of days; of doomsday? In my lifetime I have seen fear of a nuclear winter; of comet impact; of an ice age; and now it is global warming and a pandemic. What was the origin of the divisive human obsession with heavenly gods; the old warring planetary gods and their apocalyptic weapon—the thunderbolt? I was in high school when I found an answer. In 1950 the textbook publisher, The Macmillan Company, released a best-selling book by Immanuel Velikovsky titled Worlds in Collision. It inspired me with a well-documented, multi-disciplinary forensic investigation of global references to planetary gods and their interactions. The archetypes and exploits of each planet are the same the world over. They must have been witnessed as the Earth rotated beneath some celestial spectacle. But it seems we never learn from past mistakes. Worlds in Collision suffered the modern equivalent of a medieval book burning at the hands of astronomer priests who threatened a boycott of Macmillan’s textbook business. The company was forced to transfer the rights of their best-seller to Doubleday.

Immanuel Velikovsky photo
Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979)

Immanuel Velikovsky is famous for the controversy that came to be known as The Velikovsky Affair. This was an embarrassing moment for mainstream scientists, who showed themselves to be emotional partisans of a cult rather than the rational objective thinkers they’d been pretending to be. In fact, their behaviour was so unbecoming, the populist scientist of the time, Carl Sagan issued an apology, expressing his regret that scientists and academics had lost all rational comportment and dignity in their vicious attacks against Velikovsky. His book Worlds in Collision is an incredible multi-disciplinary study that considers a mountain of evidence indicating large-scale planetary displacement in our solar system with catastrophic consequences on Earth during historical memory and recorded in Biblical tales and myths around the world.

The noted astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle wrote:

The book [Worlds in Collision] caused a sensation both with the public and among astronomers, the latter becoming stirred to near-violent displays of outrage. Such eminent figures as Harlow Shapley were heavily involved. It could be said that Shapley became angry even to the point of incoherence.

Sir Fred Hoyle

Of Velikovsky, Hoyle wrote:

He believed in the primacy of documentary evidence, whereas we believed in the primacy of mathematical rules, rules that enabled us to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, where and when the next total eclipse of the Sun was going to occur.

Sir Fred Hoyle

This belief in a primordial Newtonian clockwork solar system and dismissal of contrary evidence is unscientific but characteristic of mathematical theorists. It allows unrestrained retro-calculation. But the laws of physics are man-made and subject to revision, particularly in the case of the force of gravity, which in this 21st century still has no physical explanation. The law gives a purely mathematical description of planetary orbits. Yet the unbalanced force of gravity has no feedback mechanism to maintain order for 3 or more orbiting bodies. This disturbing fact is ignored.29Sussman G. J., Wisdom J.. “Chaotic Evolution of the Solar System.” Science 257(3), 1992. pp. 56-62. “the evolution of the solar system as a whole is chaotic, with a time scale of exponential divergence of about 4 million years.” Nonetheless, Hoyle was moved to ask:

could it be that Velikovsky had revealed, admittedly in a form that was scientifically unacceptable, a situation that astronomers are under a cultural imperative to hide? Could it be that, somewhere in the shadows, there is a past history that it is inadmissible to discuss?30Fred Hoyle. “Home is where the wind blows.” pp. 285-86.

Sir Fred Hoyle

Velikovsky “in a form that was scientifically unacceptable” had confirmed Hoyle’s suspicion.31Immanuel Velikovsky. Mankind in Amnesia. He was a polymath and psychoanalyst—a broadly educated classical scientist, unlike specialists of the last century. In his view, mankind demonstrates a clear desire not to know that the solar system has a recent catastrophic history. All catastrophes are pushed into an unimaginably remote past, so the uniformitarian history of the Earth reads like a reassuring “Once upon a time, long, long ago…” bedtime story. Meanwhile we have developed weapons capable of re-enacting the destruction from heaven wrought by the interplanetary thunderbolts and placed those weapons in the hands of amnesiacs, unaware of the post traumatic subconscious urge to repeat the past. Velikovsky warned that until we remember our past, we cannot heal from it and are doomed to repeat our irrational patterns of unsustainable behaviour toward each other and the planet. We are our own worst enemy.

Clearly, Velikovsky’s over-dramatic book title Worlds in Collision was misleading because what he, and the mytho-historians who followed him,32David Talbott. Thunderbolts of the Gods (2002). Dwardu Cardona. Newborn Star (2016). Ev Cochrane. Fossil Gods and Forgotten Worlds (2010). described were close electrical encounters of the Earth with other planets. Of course, we now read that the Moon was formed in far off times by collision of the early Earth with a Mars-sized body. Such stories are a result of the empty toolbox of astrophysicists. They only have explosions and collisions to work with. There is no specialist on Earth who understands cosmology as the “Queen of the sciences” for the simple reason that it requires coherence across all disciplinary boundaries. No university on Earth, with their focus on micro-specialisation, provides that. Natural philosophy has been pronounced dead by Stephen Hawking. However, “It is the inductive science of philosophy that teaches the ‘hard’ scientist how to be scientific.”33David Harriman. The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics. 2010. p. 243. And as Jacques Barzun wrote, “If he retreats from the indulgence of self-annihilation, man the philosopher will find ancestral voices to guide him.”34Jacques Barzun. Science: the glorious entertainment. p. 306.

At university in the early 60s, I think I was the only science undergraduate haunting the Anthropology section of the university library. Reading the creation myths of many diverse cultures convinced me that Velikovsky had made a case that must be answered. The Electric Universe cosmology is the result of a lifetime’s independent research shared with similarly inspired scholars from the arts, engineering and sciences. Because it includes human evidence of the sky stretching back into prehistory, it provides a surprisingly detailed big picture of the recent history of the solar system and our experiences of a series of dramatic interplanetary events. As a result, the Electric Universe is the only coherent cosmology that has correctly predicted and explained discoveries in the space age. And in 2019 a multi-million-dollar independent experiment to audit the electrical nature of stars was successfully completed.35See safireproject.com It will revolutionize the sciences. The Electric Universe is a scientific and cultural paradigm leap that must happen if we are to have a future on this blue jewel of a planet.


[1]Ralph Juergens, Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism, Pensée, Fall 1972, p. 9.
[2]Phys.org.  Iron is everywhere in Earth’s vicinity.
[3]In a personal letter to Professor Solovine, dated 28 March 1949: “You can imagine that I look back on my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.” Quoted in B. Hoffman, Albert Einstein – Creator and Rebel (N.Y.: Viking Press, 1972).
[4]Marco M. Capria, Review of André K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics Apeiron, Montreal, 1999, pp. 285.
[5]André K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics, pp. 51-8, Apeiron, Montreal.
[6]A. K. T. Assis, Deriving gravitation from electromagnetism, Can. J. Phys. 70, pp. 330-40 (1992). 
[7]W. Thornhill, Electric Comets & Asteroids.
[8]B. J.R. Davidsson et al. Nucleus properties of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 estimated from non-gravitational force modelling, Icarus 187 (2007) p. 312. The water production rate falls off “around 30 days pre-perihelion, and continuing for the next 50 days,” which is not expected in the icy comet model but may match the electrical model since it coincides with the minimum radial acceleration of the negative comet with respect to the positive Sun.  
[9]Halton Arp, The Observational Impetus for Le Sage Gravity Pushing  gravity: New perspective on Le Sage’s theory of gravity,(Apeiron, Montreal (2002). 
[10]G. Burbidge et al. The Discovery of a High Redshift X-ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319.
[11]Edwin Hubble,“…on the basis of the evidence now available, a choice seems to be presented, as once before in the days of Copernicus, between a small, finite universe, and a sensibly infinite universe plus a new principle of nature. And, as before, the choice may be determined by the attribute of simplicity.” The Problem of the Expanding Universe. Science 1942; 95: pp. 212-215.
[12]Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Apeiron, Montreal (1998).
[13]See Eric J. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, p. 244 ff., Simon & Schuster, 1991.
[14]https://www.plasma-universe.com/galaxy-formation/, Electrical Birthing of Stars.
[15]ESA Report, 2 October 2009.
[16]Phys.org, “The water in Saturn’s rings and satellites is like that on Earth,” 3/12/2018.
[17]Phys.org, “The Origin of Binary Stars.” 21/8/2017.
[18]G. T. Marklund, Plasma Convection in Force-Free Magnetic Fields as a Mechanism for Chemical Separation in Cosmical Plasmas, Nature 1979; 277: 370-1.
[19]A. M. Stutz1 and A. Gould, Slingshot mechanism in Orion: Kinematic evidence for ejection of protostars by filaments, Astronomy & Astrophysics 590, A2 (2016).
[20]G. L. Verschuur, Neutral Hydrogen Filaments at High Galactic Latitudes, Astrophys Space Sci 1991; 185: 305-32.
[21]T. Holden, Do dinosaurs pose a gravity problem?
[22]Jan Lamprecht, Hollow Planets: A Feasibility Study of Possible Hollow Worlds, (2013).
[23]Phys.org, March 20, 2020, Initial findings of artificial impact on asteroid Ryugu
[24]See https://etherealmatters.org/sam
[25]K. R. Healy, A. L. Peratt, Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, And Experiment, Astrophysics and Space Science 227: 229-253, 1995.
[26]G. B. Jeffery, W. Perrett, Sidelights on Relativity. Einstein A. Ether and the Theory of Relativity: An Address Delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.
[27]Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Apeiron 1998: p. 239.
[28]Bruce G. Charlton, Not Even Trying… The Corruption of Real Science, University of Buckingham Press.“..modern research is incoherent, and therefore whatever masquerades as checking and testing is not merely irrelevant but actively misleading – merely an excuse for unendingly funding permanently inconclusive research.”
[29]Sussman GJ, Wisdom J.  Chaotic Evolution of the Solar System,Science 257(3): 56-62, 1992. “the evolution of the solar system as a whole is chaotic, with a time scale of exponential divergence of about 4 million years.”
[30]Fred Hoyle, Home is where the wind blows, pp. 285-6.
[31]Immanuel Velikovsky, Mankind in Amnesia,
[32]David Talbott, Thunderbolts of the Gods, (2002), Dwardu Cardona, Newborn Star, (2016), Ev Cochrane, Fossil Gods and Forgotten Worlds, (2010).
[33]David Harriman, The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics, 2010, p. 243.
[34]Jacques Barzun, Science: the glorious entertainment, p. 306.
[35]See safireproject.com


© Wallace Thornhill  2020

Wallace William Thornhill has a B.Sc in Physics & Electronics from Melbourne University. He left post-graduate study to work at IBM Australia for 11 years. In 1967, he was IBM’s systems engineer for the Research Schools at the Australian National University, which gave him excellent access to libraries and scientists there during the Apollo missions to the Moon. 

Recognition & Awards
Thornhill was awarded a gold medal in Hungary in 2010 by the European Telesio-Galilei Academy of Science. He presented the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) John Chappell memorial lecture, “Stars in an Electric Universe” in 2011 at U. of Maryland and was awarded the NPA 2013 Sagnac Award for Lifetime Achievement.

Publications
Thornhill has published two books with colleague David Talbott (author of The Saturn Myth)—the first titled Thunderbolts of the Gods and the second The Electric Universe, on the combined subjects of the recent history of the solar system and the electrical nature of the universe. Also e-books are available online: The Big Bang?, The Electric Sun and The Comet

SAFIRE
Thornhill and his colleague, the retired electrical engineer Prof. Donald Scott, are responsible for initiating the multi-million-dollar SAFIRE experiment in Toronto, Canada, which successfully tested an electrical model of the Sun that is applicable to all stars. Some Canadian nuclear scientists have dubbed the experiment the most advanced of its type. It has successfully produced energy, transmuted elements and shown conditions observed in and above the solar photosphere.

The Electric Universe
The Electric Universe was first presented at a world conference in Portland, Oregon, in January 1997. Workshops and conferences were then held in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington. He has presented at conferences in the USA, Australia, Europe and the Middle East. 

Further Resources
For more detail please visit Thornhill’s personal website: holoscience.com

Also check out the Thunderbolts website: thunderbolts.info

For a wonderful series of videos on the The Electric Universe (which have enjoyed 15 million views to date), see Space News on YouTube and join the growing subscriber list, now numbering 156,000. 

36 Comments

  1. Bill says:

    Christians find G_D in a man, who said he was…….. in fact G_d is all around us, from the Sub-atomic to the Galactic. Just look at the stars…. to see GOD.

  2. Ben Hyde says:

    Magnificent.

  3. S. Freeman says:

    It seems that every mainstream theory today is there not explain the unknown, but to keep the old mainstream paradigms alive by perpetually papering over the unsolved questions with more and more far fetched answers.
    Nowadays, the most popular celebrity scientists are really just philosophers and entertainers, telling us the moon is made out of cheese, all the while showing contempt to those who pose differing hypothesis. Such contempt betrays their fears.
    The science shows produced these days are utterly unwatchable and it it clear to me too that the last 40 years were nearly a complete waste.

    They have become what they have once hated. They are a religion, whose church leaders are calling for the heretics to be burned at the stake for blasphemy.

    My Thanks to you Wallace Thornhill, and everyone else for their hard work.

  4. Tobe Dresdon says:

    Fantstic. I have been following you sinse 2013. I am absolutely thrilled to finally have an explanation of the universe that answers so many questions I have wondered about. I have learnt so many amazing things from you guys. The evidence you have presented to support you arguments is very compelling and convincing. With my limited education I am still getting my head around alot of the different sciences you have presented but I love it. I love learning about them. I know the picture will get clearer in time. At least for now I can follow a community of scientists that are obviously on the right track, open and present the facts clearly, and understandably. Many thanks.

  5. Sean Andrews says:

    The in text citation isn’t included in the paper.

  6. Thomas H. Harrington says:

    Back in the 1950’s I was stimulated by I. Velikovsky. The EU seems to be a natural outgrrowth of those ideas. It seems that the 20th century will be rememberd as a “dark age” in science.

  7. Edison Roy Trask says:

    I am glad to see an article written by someone like you that seems to put a scientific explanation on thoughts I have had for many years about a theory of everything. I am a retired civil engineer with nothing more than a basic knowledge of electronics but I have read a considerable amount of literature on the atom and its breakdown into smaller and ever smaller particles. This lead me to the conclusion that eventually there would be nothing left but electromagnetism. Also, coming at it from the other way around I read about the way all mass was formed, which was from a burst of electromagnetism. The conclusion was obvious but I could never describe it based on research such as you have done. I sent Dr. Scott an email about it several years back but I received no answer. It was probably an old address. My exact way of describing this theory of everything was “everything is electromagnetism and electromagnetism is everything”. I hope more people take your work seriously.

  8. Mark Martens says:

    Thornhill has done a remarkably good scientific job of bringing together observations from disparate fields into one coherent ‘big picture’. I have been unable to see how competent scientists can ignore, let alone refute, the Electric Sun model, or the Electric Universe as a model of the unification of forces.

    What this means is that if the consensus of academic science has been dominated by that, it is scientifically incompetent, or scientifically dishonest. Some consensus.

  9. Mike holt says:

    Excellent observations from wal and other notaries,
    I would like to ask though,is it possible to keep a plasmoid,of any size,in a dark mode,if so would the great attractor(centaurs wall),be always the opposite polarity.

  10. Wal: Thank you for this.

  11. Ivar Nielsen says:

    Thanks for this excellent informational overview 🙂

    All my perceptional boxes were ticked – until I came to:
    “The big bang has its origin in the creation myth of the splitting open of a primordial ‘cosmic egg.’ Historically we have the unexplained exploits of the planetary gods . . .”.
    Immanuel Velikovsky surely had some fine alternative cosmological ideas, for instants his “Cosmos without Gravity”. But his mythological/cosmological/astronomical understanding was based on the Roman Empire Pantheon naming of planets which got their names from prime creative deities when the empire adopted Christianity and the “One God” instead of the many deities and named the planets instead.
    The myth of Jupiter refers to a central light of creation (The Thunderbolt symbol) in our galaxy and not to planet Jupiter. The myth of Goddess Venus refers to the Milky Way contours on the southern hemisphere which was formed out from the galactic center, hence the “birth of Venus out from Jupiter”.
    The myth of Saturn(us) refers to the male looking Milky Way contours on the northern hemisphere and not to planet Saturn. This galactic figure seemingly revolves around the Earth celestial pole. and has noting to do with planets orbiting in their ecliptic plane.
    The Myth of Mars most likely resembles the Star Constellation of Orion, the celestial warrior/hunter and not planet Mars.
    These myths are not understood in the ThunderboltsProject Society and these misconceptions have led to ideas of “Symbols of an Alien Sky” as well as “The Ancient Polar Configuration” – which wasn´t alien at all. The question of “alienation” derives only from misconceptions of the mythical informations when taking galactic deities to count for planets.
    Just the fact of having and working with gendered named planets, should have turned on all red warning lights before making such illogical ideas. There is no way our ancestors with their natural observation skills would have named the “5 wandering dotted stars” in gendered terms. They only did so when a star constellation or when the Milky Way contours could look somewhat human as a male or female figure – for instants with the Egyptians and the Goddess Hathor were thought to resemble the Milky Way on the southern hemisphere. And as with the Roman God Saturnus on the northern hemisphere.
    This misconception in the TBP regi is very unfortunate as the correct mythical
    interpretation and connection of the ancient myths of creation fits very well to the ideas of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology.
    As it is for the moment, the mythical perception in TBP sooner or later will come back and bite the otherwise else fine ideas of EU and PC in the TBP.

    I´ve been a member of the ThunderboltsForum twice – and twice excluded – for trying to explain the mythical connections, but it seems for the moment that “no one shall come and give response and a second opinion on the TBP ideas.

    Regards
    Ivar Nielsen
    Denmark
    More information on my personal Mytho-Cosmological Website – http://www.native-science.net/index.html

  12. VERONICA ROACH says:

    Thank you – I’m a EU fan for many years….having wandered thru all the blurb & anti-blurb over the years, and it was a real treat to read your synopsis. I think it is high time for the outbreak of these concepts to take over & it appears to be happening in tiny chinks of light in various places. Unfortunately the ‘educational’ system tends to be firmly in the grip of the conservative followers who are mainly terrified of being ostracized by those they kiss up to ! In every field of life when you stand back & watch you can see exactly who those humans are, and it makes me very angry that children are being taught ‘facts’ rather than being taught ‘here is what we think we know’ in every field, but also “here is somebody else’s strange idea…what do you kids think about that ?” ! If they did THAT those bright little minds would astonish them !

  13. THANK YOU !!!
    HOPE YOU HAVE A CONFERENCE IN KONA, HAWAI SOME DAY.
    THEN I WILL BE ABLE TO ATTEND.
    FASCINATING AND RIGHT ON!!

  14. Gerrit Herbst says:

    Great article. I have your books and this is a great up to date recap. Time dilation, length contraction, and the Lorentz transformations have never sat well with me. I can still remember in grammar school the expanding balloon universe analogy being taught as fact. I hope we have a planetary paradigm shift in physics sooner than later.

  15. Ted says:

    An excellent article. So refreshing to see Wal summarize the Electric Universe paradigm so succinctly. As always…..

    “The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.” Sir William Bragg

    There is an aspect of the Electric Universe model I have an alternative view on and have explored and attempted to answer the following: Does the electromagnetic field at the most fundamental level spin and is orbital in nature or does it oscillate in spherical standing waves and do these waves relate harmonically to all levels of the cosmos? In the spirit of Sir Williams Bragg’s quote above I have explored this alternative and the implications this would have on our understanding the cosmos, if this is found to be correct, on the website linked below.

    I have taken the liberty of adding a link to this article on this website. Let me know if Wal is okay with this or not.

    Would appreciate feed back on this view re it being a viable alternative or not. Happy for it to be either way. We may need to explore both possibilities further, i.e. re look at the data again to confirm which it is. Always healthy to have alternatives models to explore in science.

  16. ian smith says:

    Hahahahaha. Very amusing read. Nothing to do with science, but amusing all the same. I suspect that the author wrote that whilst his nurses had failed to realise that he was out of bed, playing on the internet again!

  17. Zahi says:

    Brilliant explanation of the universe and how it’s inter-connected. This has massive implications, all great.

  18. vcragain says:

    I’m not a scientist, have taken some science courses in my college years, but I’m now 80. This article is great, of the stuff I managed to understand though, one thing really stood out to me….in talking about these concepts we are reduced to talking of “matter” & “particles” – as the ‘stuff’ that is the base of which all these charges are properties. BUT noone ever says what IS a “particle” or a piece of “matter” – so we are really STILL reduced to just a theory of what is at the root of everything…but still no explanation…..whereas to me ‘everything is electric’ is the answer – the charges THEMSELVES are the “matter”, requiring no ‘particle’ to reside on…..poof & we are gone ?
    So – ok this is fun, but we are still not able to answer the fundamental questions – and the ‘edge’ of that proposed non-expanding universe is just as problematic. Do we still need a God figure then ? Whodunnit ?

  19. Paul Morris says:

    Many thanks for all the information and the work you and your colleagues have done and made available to the world!

    All I can say is “Incredible”

  20. Nik says:

    The Electric Universe provides the solution to prevent extinction after ANOTHER ALERT: 2020-4-15 double solar CMEs https://youtu.be/k0k_to-FeZU
    Earth laser plasma shield, CAN prevent a devastating global blackout/all nuclear plants’ explosion by asteroid explosion or solar storm hit! https://LaserShieldEarth.wordpress.com

  21. Wonderful stuff, Wal. Truly brilliant. Finally a full explanation from sub atomic particles to atoms, to gravity, to planets to stars to galaxies. I also agree with one of your final statements, “religions are the most divisive feature of human existence.” Religion was the basis of how women got blamed for the catastrophes that occurred in the last 5000 years, because close encounters of Earth with Venus was the cause and Venus was always seen as female. The result was women were seen as evil, stupid and a low life, and therefore removed from civil society and locked up in the home. I have written a book on how women lost all status due to the planetary events at the beginning of the apocalypse. I only realised this after reading everything I could find on EU. The last chapter of my book can be found here for a summary in my blog, cvawynter.wordpress.com
    Thanks again for your persistent questioning and research over decades.

  22. Robert Smart says:

    “for those giants to exist and be fleet-footed” Steven Spielberg needed his dinosaurs to be fleet footed in Jurassic Park because it was easy for animators to work with because they had been doing similar animations in cartoons for years and that’s what the audience expected?
    A massive greenhouse effect with torrential rains very high winds and wide shallow lakes filled with primitive fast growing plants provided the ideal environment for mega fauna to develop, they waded around supported by water eating the abundance of plants. They needed to be big to survive the storms. These fast growing plants were using carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and releasing oxygen, perhaps eventually there was a tipping point and in a year or two the storms stopped the skies were blue and the swamps the dinosaurs lived in dried out leading to their demise? We are digging up those fossilised plants from the ancient swamps and using oxygen from our atmosphere to burn the coal/oil/gas producing carbon dioxide, perhaps we will create the reverse tipping point? Watch out mankind! Carbon capture and storage is CO2 capture and storage so it takes O2 from our atmosphere and buries it!

  23. Michael Peterson says:

    It doesn’t take a belief in aliens or dark matter for free energy, levitation, etc. Just scientist to follow their science systems and recheck their dogma from time to time.

  24. Jon McMahon says:

    Wal thank you for being a champion for a holistic self-organized instantaneously interconnected living universe and shining the light on the sacredly held limiting beliefs of reductionism that has held us back for a century. Bless you.

  25. Mike Belcher says:

    Very interesting summary of the EU Theory. Very glad I was able to be at the momentous Bath conference last year. Worth the 30+ hour trip from New Zealand where I live.

  26. ian smith says:

    I can see why this gibberish isn’t in a scientific journal! It isn’t science.

  27. Tom Zavist says:

    Dear Mr. Thornhill:

    I sent an e-mail message to you and Dr. Gallucci on January 22, 2020, via the http://www.thunderbolts.info website, but I heard nothing in response.

    Please e-mail me. If you never send me an e-mail message, eventually I will write my own theory up as a book, mention your dipole hypothesis as its inspiration, explain all the errors in your theory, mention my offer to collaborate with you, and then add that you never responded.

    I have enjoyed the picture of the day at http://www.thunderbolts.info for many years. The website does a great job to keep persistently presenting the alternative point of view of empirical cosmologists.

    In terms of advancing science and making progress, the problem of empiricists is a lack of mathematical theory. The Electric Universe model has a profound lack of original mathematics to it. Theoreticians in physics have their own issues. One issue of theirs is to reject every theory of gravitation that is not as complex as quantum electrodynamics or quantum chromodynamics.

    As explained below, and in January, your electric gravity theory is not a plausible theory, but you can fix every error in it and make it plausible. You can come to understand gravitation better than the late Dr. Hawking, if this is what you have the patience to do. I am happy to help.

    You and Dr. Gallucci have attempted to derive gravitation from electromagnetism. When you suggested a dipolar theory of gravitation years ago in a picture of the day, I took it to heart. I tried and tried and tried to derive gravitation from electromagnetism, but no matter what I did, the only derivative force I could justify was magnetism.

    You two have three fundamental hypotheses. You postulate that gravitation is not so much a fundamental force as it is a derivative of another force. You postulate that gravitation depends on tiny amounts of charge separation within subatomic particles. You postulate that gravitation is a manifestation of the electromagnetic force, which is incorrect. Thus, your electric gravity theory is wrong, because two hypotheses are consistent with a plausible theory of gravitation, while the third is not. Nevertheless, your theory can be made plausible, as long as you have the fortitude to abandon electromagnetism as the source for gravitation, and as long as you also have the patience to go all the way mathematically to completion.

    With electromagnetism as the underlying fundamental force, one stumbling block you will always encounter is the uniformity of gravitation in all directions, given that every celestial body subject to it has a macroscopically measurable dipole moment. Consider a celestial body with a non-zero dipole moment. The dipole moment will cause the dipoles that you postulate within subatomic particles along the relevant axis for the dipole moment of the celestial body itself to be aligned with it and will cause the dipoles that you postulate in a plane perpendicular to the axis to be aligned the opposite way, with every other alignment in between. This is how a compass works! The working of a compass is an empirical observation that you cannot just blithely dismiss out of hand.

    Dipoles will not be radially aligned as you postulate, unless the celestial body has no measurable dipole moment itself. There is no way to get a uniform attractive force out of such a mess. You can postulate radially aligned dipole moments until the cows come home, but in the real world dipoles will not be aligned this way. This is one reason why your third hypothesis is incorrect.

    You cannot derive gravitation from electromagnetism. Gravitation is not a form of electromagnetism.

    You have a fourth hypothesis that tiny charge separation will occur only along a two-dimensional surface, rather than being throughout a three-dimensional celestial body. This fourth hypothesis is incorrect because a force that is attractive on one side of the surface will be oppositely attractive on the other side.

    Specifically, you postulate the gravitation between an apple and the Earth to be due to radially oriented dipoles on the surface of the Earth, which orient the dipoles on the surface of the apple likewise. Imagine, if you will, an apple tossed into a deep hole. By your theory, the apple will be attracted upward toward the surface of the Earth by the dipolar force as the apple falls down the hole. The apple will slow to a halt, then rise back up in the hole (under this dipolar force) coming out of the hole at the same speed that it went in. Then the apple will rise up above the hole being slowed again by the dipolar force, go up as far above the hole as it went down into it, halt, then come back down again. The apple will oscillate in an out of the hole near the surface of the Earth. This dipolar force is not gravitation, even if it happens to be rather close to it quantitatively above the surface of the Earth, because it is its own inverse below the surface of the Earth. The dipolar force attracts in opposite directions above and below the surface where you postulate the dipoles to be.

    There are hundreds of extremely precise experiments confirming the gravitational attraction between many, many different substances to a large number of decimals of precision. You have to explain the gravitation between every isotope and every element. The protons and neutrons have different masses from each other, and they have different masses in different atoms. The electron has mass too, and it is substantially different from a nucleon. You have to explain how all this works mathematically. It is within your faculties to do this, if you pursue it patiently.

    Quantum mechanics is essential to a plausible derivation of gravitation. Quarks and gluons matter too. You reintroduce the discredited theory of aether, and you disregard an empirically validated theory of general relativity.

    Every error in your theory can be corrected. The dipole is the right starting point, but electric gravity is wrong. To derive a plausible theory of gravitation, you have to accept what amounts to generally accepted physics—quantum mechanics, electron shells, relativity, quarks, gluons, etc., all of which have been empirically validated, and you have to reject incorrect theories, including circular electron orbits and aether. This is not because accepted theory is the consensus among physicists but because it is plausible and consistent with observation.

    You can do it. You can fix every error in your theory and carry the mathematics out far enough to show gravitation (as a derivative of another force) to depend appropriately on mass and on the distance between centroids, for every electrically neutral substance.

    Sincerely,

    Tom Zavist

  28. Christopher Collet says:

    Wal, as a 4+ year learner and now understander of this model, (more a truth), I feel privaliged to have read this detailed and, for the critics’ benefit, understandable essay of the Electric Universe. It is a concise and beautiful argument that should be stuck in every school’s libraries shelves or window’s.
    As a fellow Australian, I feel not only honoured about your person, but that our natural ability of sniffing the “Bullshit-ometer” has won over. I’m proud your Aussie instinct.
    Beauty mate!!!

  29. Pat Quinn says:

    Awesome insights into the way the universe works. It was difficult for me to accept the electric universe model at first, having previously done research into traditional theories and accepted mainstream cosmology thinking.
    Now I see the earth, our solar system and the universe from a new, inclusive perspective. That gives us all hope, and will allow humans to advance faster, and with more real knowledge about the things we know, and the realization of the things we don’t know.

  30. A profoundly great read, Dr. Thornhill

    However, random chance did not create atoms, the aether, neutrons and the electric universe; however, God DID create the latter precisely because our human spirit, our human soul and our human mind could not have been created by random-chance.

    BTW, I recently read the Electric Universe. It caused me to convert form establishment myth to electric universe fact because, with an electrical and electronic engineering background, it all made sense.

  31. Pat Quinn says:

    This was a great article to read. It makes so much sense to me.
    Please keep on working to educate more people. The video and written article library on the thunderbolts site are very well done. It took me a few months to undo my former earth, solar system and universe education, but now I’m well on the way. I enjoy all the presenters and writers on this forum.

  32. Xiang He says:

    Overall in the right direction, many critiques of the current state of scientific affairs totally valid. However, the EU theory hasn’t reached the bottom of truth yet, as indicated by its lack of understanding of the structure of the proton and the absence of positrons. The finite universe is indeed electromagnetic in nature, but the key notion doesn’t lie in electricity, but in rotations. It’s the rotational energy that leads to electromagnetism. Black holes do exist, albeit not as understood but current mainstream theories. Same with the Big Bang: it did happen, and will happen over and over again, but not as a creatio ex nihilo event. From this perspective, the EU theory isn’t complete or accurate.

  33. Xiang He says:

    The Big Bang not only happened, but it happened for a critical reason: it was the result of a lengthy gestational period during which the structure of the finite universe was laid down in embryonic forms. Without understanding the nature of the Big Bang, the EU theory will not be able to account for the hierarchical structure of the finite universe.

  34. […] While Trump has been relentlessly—even compulsively—attacked as “unscientific” for these (and almost all) utterances, such criticism is unjustified, and is itself borne of an ignorance of the underlying science. It so happens that Montagnier is the pioneering mind advancing this idea, which follows from his incredible discoveries into the electromagnetic properties of life. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *