This is an issue on multidimensional levels, from the material to the spiritual. All is interconnected. Something that wants to be hidden is put in plain view. It's right in your face if you know where to look. To understand the control system is to understand the Luciferian connection. To defeat this control system the occult needs to be recognised by everybody. And so like a horse with blinkers, if you can’t understand what is in front of you then you are not going to understand what is happening to you. We cannot ignore the Occult because we think it negative. It is not. It is information about how the universe, the human psyche, and natural law work. The word Occult simply means hidden from sight, something obscured. But when people hear this word negative connotations and misconceptions come with it. Occult is derived from the Latin noun oculus which means eye, and from the Latin verb ocultare which means hidden from sight. This knowledge of ourselves and how we function has been taken out of the general circulation of humanity and has been reserved for the elect few who have guarded it for selfish usage. This has created a power differential in society. How we use that knowledge makes it either good or bad. The usages can be for order and goodness, love and freedom, or for the wielding of power to gain differential advantage to create chaos and evil. The latter has been used. We need to look at the negative to understand the strategies that have been used, to understand what’s happening to us so we can be in a position to do something about it. The manipulators, who understand the positive aspects of this knowledge, wilfully choose to use it as a weapon against those not in the know, by continuing to occult it. When the manipulation tactics are known, it becomes common sense knowledge and only then will humanity ever be free. When we de-occult this knowledge, the occult is no longer the occult. It is brought out into the light of day.

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could

Mainstream modern cosmology has turned out to be science fiction distorting our whole vision of the universe, conjuring up a sense of lonely bodies in a void of isolated galaxies where light takes a long time to travel between lone self-fusing stars, their planets in clockwork solitude. It’s like we are isolated and disconnected in a universe that came out of singularity from a beginning when there was nothing – which exploded! These are thought experiments. Science without experiment is imaginary conjecture amounting to a belief, a thought explosion. And gravity was the focus of this in 20th Century astronomy. In the face of rapid discoveries about the sun and its plasma environment and interstellar ether, electromagnetism and plasmas ought to come into focus, but cosmologists always denied electricity having any relevance in space. They say it doesn’t do anything. It DOES. Newton’s theory describes gravity’s effect but doesn’t explain it. He wrote that he framed no hypotheses. Newton's law of gravity does not involve time whereas Einstein’s does. Einstein’s unreal geometry doesn’t explain gravity either. People had trouble working out what Einstein had to say because it didn’t make sense. Only because other people believe in it people decided ‘oh well it must be right’. Matter has no effect on empty space. The demonstration using heavy steel balls on a rubber sheet to represent ‘gravity wells’ warping space-time relies on gravity as its own explanation. Einstein removed the possibility of finding a link between electromagnetism and gravity. They had this rule that nothing goes faster than the speed of light. The speed of light is not the fastest speed in the universe. Yet in the atom, the electron is much smaller than the proton and the neutron. Subatomic particles orbiting within, by simple calculation, turn out to be travelling much faster than the speed of light. If you could release those particles to move in a straight line they would travel from here to the far side of Andromeda in a second! This means that the electric force itself operates throughout the universe at near infinite speed. It means that everything is connected and there is an inter-connectedness of all things as One. Electric signalling operates instantaneously. Imposing a speed limit no faster than light and requiring force to be transmitted by particles makes the universe incoherent. If an electron has smaller subunits of charge that operate within the radius of an electron, the electric force must operate at a speed way in excess of the speed of light in order for the electron to remain a coherent object, otherwise a signal would detune according to the Doppler effect – the speed of light is the snail’s pace in the universe. The earth knows where the sun is right now, not where it was 8.3 minutes ago. Gravity must act instantly for the planets to orbit the Sun in a stable fashion. If the Earth were attracted to where the Sun appears in the sky, it would be orbiting a largely empty space because the Sun moves on in the 8.3 minutes it takes for sunlight to reach the Earth. Gravity itself operates at near infinite speed, far quicker than the speed of light. If gravity only operated at the speed of light grand spiral galaxies would not be grand spirals, and all planets would experience a torque and be slung them out of the solar system in a few thousand years. You would have no solar system. That doesn't happen, does it? The force of electricity operates at a near infinite speed on our cosmic scale, inside the electron. Electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light because it is a transverse disturbance travelling through a medium (like waves of a stone dropped into a pond). Electromagnetic waves must have a medium and can’t travel through nothing. A thing can’t be conjured up from nothing. Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism requires the ether. There can be no vacuum, energy needs ether. Sir Oliver Lodge saw the ether as crucial to our understanding. Einstein in his special theory of relativity postulated there was no medium, no ‘ether.’ His special theory was disconfirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment which was backed up by the more rigorous repeats of the test by Dayton Miller. There is an ether; a wave cannot exist in nothing. We do not properly understand gravity; what is it? Gravity is due to radial oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons. The dipole-dipole force becomes the inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies. The gravitational and inertial response of matter has an identical cause. The electrostatic force is one thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times stronger than that of gravity. Gravity is so much weaker because it is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field. Celestial bodies are born electrically polarized from a plasma z-pinch (by core expulsion from a larger body). The 2,000-fold difference in mass of the proton and neutron in the nucleus versus the electron means that gravity will maintain charge polarization by offsetting the nucleus within each atom. The mass of a body is an electrical variable. Therefore the so-called gravitational constant of ‘G’ is a variable! That is why ‘G’ is so difficult to pin down. If gravity is an electric dipole force between subatomic particles, the force daisy chains through matter regardless of whether or not that matter is conductive. A clue to the reported ‘gravity shielding’ effects of a spinning, superconducting disk is that electrons in a superconductor exhibit a connectedness. This means that that their inertia is increased. Anything that interferes with the ability of subatomic particles within the spinning disk to align their dipoles with those of the earth will exhibit antigravity effects. A number of experiments demonstrating antigravity effects have been done, and no one was able to convince scientists attached to general relativity that they have been able to influence gravity. They turned a blind eye to unwelcome evidence. Believing in antigravity undermines Einstein’s theory. What is magnetism? Ampere's law for the magnetic force between two current carrying wires is found to be equivalent to the transverse electric force caused by the distortion of electrons in an electric field. This distortion causes them to form tiny collinear electric dipoles. The magnetic force is simply another manifestation of the electric force. That is the true nature of our misunderstood sun? We don’t understand them. What is the nature of light? Light is a transverse electromagnetic wave moving through a medium – the ether. Einstein’s equation doesn’t help us understand the cosmology that deals with these forces. Earth’s science isn’t capable of explaining them, and scientific reports are pure science fiction. Wallace Thornhill delivered this speech all about the electric universe, and he has done some truly fantastic work – - and he has to say, 99.999% of all the observable matter in the universe exists as this ubiquitous plasma that most people are ignorant of. What is it? It’s neither a solid nor a liquid, nor gas; it’s more like ionized gas, composed of electrically charged particles at high energy which build matter. Electrical currents generate magnetic fields; so therefore electromagnetic forces have more influence on plasma than do gravitational forces. In space plasma is so energetic and hot it remains electrically charged, and there it consists solely of free-moving ions and electrons. Ions are atoms that have lost their electrons. To strip electrons of their atoms and make plasma, energy is needed. This has to be in the form of heat, electricity or light (intense laser or UV). With not enough energy to sustain it the atoms collapse again and recombine plasma back into gas. So outside Earth’s atmosphere, the dominant form of matter is plasma. This means that ‘empty’ space isn’t. It has been found to be teaming with life as they say – the constant flow of plasma, of charged particles. The universe is connected and coherent. And when that plasma cools and becomes denser, the atoms or molecules in it that predominate in forming the three different states of matter we are used to on Earth – gas, liquids and solids - are possible. The fourth state of matter was identified in 1879 by an English physicist, Sir William Crookes. In 1929, Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir gave it a name, plasma. He borrowed the term from medical science. The name was fitting because the matter he worked with resembled life itself - blood. This state of matter behaves in a life-like way not seen in other states of matter. Solids: condensed matter/Compact (nuclear); liquids and gases: fluid (Navier-Stokes equations); plasma: electromagnetic (Maxwell-Boltzmann equations). Solid: H2O is Ice at a cold temperature of T<0 degrees C; liquid: H2O is Water at a warm temperature of 0100 degrees C; plasma: H2O, now H+ add H+ add 2e, is ionized gas at a hotter temperature T>180,000 degrees C, 1>10 electron volts. A solid: molecules are fixed in a lattice. A liquid: molecules are free to move. A gas: molecules are even freer to move with lots of space between them. A plasma: now the ions and electrons break free and move independently, with lots of space between them. Wallace Thornhill has a degree at Melbourne University majorly in physics and electronics, and began postgraduate studies with Prof. Victor Hopper’s upper atmosphere research group. Wallace worked for 11 years with IBM Australia and then in the IBM Systems Development Institute in Canberra and worked on the first computer graphics system in Australia. He was the technical support for the computing facilities in the Research Schools at the Australian National University. This gave him excellent access to the libraries and scientists there. He joined the Department of Foreign Affairs. Wallace devotes spare time to the continuing study of astronomy and physics and goes to seminars at the ANU Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, and also the Research School of Earth Sciences. Wallace is an advocate of the theories of Velikovsky. In 1974, he was invited to attend an international symposium in Hamilton, Ontario, that dealt with Velikovsky’s works. It was there that he first met Velikovsky, and David Talbott, organizer of the conference, who also inspired him. The celestial dramas Talbott had proposed were plasma discharge phenomena. The two met again in 1994 and 1996 at international conferences in Portland, Oregon, and this began a partnership devoted to a new vision of the universe and planetary history. They co-wrote ‘The Electric Universe’ and ‘Thunderbolts of the Gods’.Wallace has for many years been an active member of the UK Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, and served on the society's committee. He has lectured in the USA and Europe on the electrical nature of the cosmos. Wallace can speak of first-hand experience he has had with the indifference and even hostility toward anyone radical enough to challenge mainstream science. He said he decided academia held no place for him; it wouldn’t give him the answers he was seeking. He pursues his life-long passion independently which is to identify the role of electricity in space. The universe is electrical and simple, much simpler than what you are being taught now. It is best understood through the well-tested behaviour of electricity. That is the one force astronomers seem to know almost nothing about, yet it is a force that is 1036 or more times as strong as gravity, yet cosmologists insist that the weakest force known to science —gravity — controls the universe. Astrophysicists do not study experimental plasma research in graduate school. They rarely take any courses that discuss James Clerke Maxwell’s equations and electromagnetic field theory or theory about the ether. At this presentation at the Weird Conference in Warminster in August 2010, Wallace examined Newton, Eddington, Maxwell and Einstein, and others, and concluded that our consciousness is in the horse and buggy era of cosmology. Modern science is a mess. We haven’t progressed that much despite the fanciful and the sensational. Quantum theory and relativity don’t get on with each other. Quantum theory is spooky where a wave can be a particle and be in two places and E=mc square is plain misunderstood and gives rise to mistakes. We do want to explore bridges between physics and metaphysics but Wallace talked about the slackness of cosmologists in their use of language like when they use the terms ‘mass’ and ‘matter’ interchangeably, and he thinks it gives us a false impression of substance. The ‘m’ in the equation that refers to mass isn’t matter, it is a property of matter. Textbooks cite the equation as the ‘first cause’ of the Big Bang, with energy birthing itself into matter. Astrophysicists will assume that 1kg of matter on earth will exhibit the same mass, or effect of gravity, anywhere in the universe, implied by the ‘G’ constant that came from Newton. The mass of subatomic particles changes in response to electromagnetic forces. There is much use imagination and logic-breaking constructs and meaningless confused language, such as the ‘fabric of space-time’. ‘Dimension’ is the latest ill-used word. New concepts are needed. You can’t devise a real concept from just sets of mathematical principles and they have nothing to do with physics. Mathematics isn’t physics and you don’t need to be a mathematical genius to be a scientist. The big bang doesn’t say anything sensible about the universe. There can be no creation from nothing. There is no logic in that. The finite cannot become infinite. Anti-matter is a misnomer. You cannot annihilate matter; you can only rearrange it, because after other forms of the matter and radiation cease to exist, it reverts back into the plasma state. Plasma is composed of electrons and ions and they are the longest lived particles known. Their lifetimes far exceed that of any other known particle. Birkeland did an experiment, his Terrella experiment, showing plasma discharge phenomena about a magnetized metal sphere. He was in the early 1900s performing his electrical ‘little Earth,’ or Terrella, experiments in Norway, and Gauss and Weber were discovering the electrical interactions of matter. But physicists are left with misconceptions about the nature of matter and space; the relationship between matter, mass and gravity; the electrical nature of stars and galaxies and the size, history and age of the universe. So they turn to particle physicists to solve their problems. The astronomer Dr Halton Arp is a leading authority on peculiar galaxies and is a modern Galileo, and he has been warning cosmologists that their assumptions cannot be correct. The universe is actually NOT expanding. Objects of a widening varying Doppler redshift are physically connected to each other, even quasars which astronomers place at the outermost reaches of the galaxy (which they base on the redshift). He revealed the impossible ‘bridges’ and statistics that there is a clustering near active galaxies and his papers were rejected. His telescope time was deprived of him and he was forced to leave the US, carrying on his research in Germany. Arp was the subject of an attempt to black ground breaking research. The scientific media adopted the hot Big Bang because the COBE satellite measure cosmic microwave background radiation at 2.7 Kelvin. But other theorists made predictions by collecting observations to calculate the temperature of space that were not based on the Big Bang, and they came much closer. One was Andrew McKeller, who in 1941 announced a temperature of 2.3K by the excitement of certain molecules. His paper was ignored whilst everyone’s attention was occupied with the war. Finlay Freundlich came along in 1954 and predicted 1.9K to 6K; Tigran Shmaonov estimated 3K in 1955. The worst predictions were made by Big Bangers, with a reading of 20K in 1946 by Robert Dicke and 50K in 1961 by George Gamow. Space temperature is estimated by the square root of a square root of energy density and the estimate of 50K was 12,000 times too high. As technology moved on and more précised measurements were taken, Big Bang proponents changed their theory to make it fit the discoveries. It didn’t confirm the Big Bang. The cosmic microwave background radiation is locally generated microwave radiation, a fog, the hum of the galactic power lines near our solar system, and does not have much to do with the origin of the universe. Fluctuations in cosmic background radiation are not random, and have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster, and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament, which our Milky Way is part of. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that CBR originated far away, far from the local Supercluster, and it is without a preferred direction in space. Big Bangers have labelled this preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident or coincidence. The Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope image showed red filaments – cosmic power transmission lines – that reveal they are part an electrical circuitry that is feeding the plasmoid at core of the Milky Way. No gravitational theorist has ever suggested this structure. Evidence contradicts the Big Bang theory with several observations. High powered telescopes reveal dynamic exchanges between galaxies and clumpy matter when the universe is supposed to be expanding. A survey of clusters of galaxies was made in 2003 using data acquired by the ROSAT X-ray Xatellite. It showed what appeared to be a huge concentration of matter of about 12 billion light years across. Such an enormous concentration of matter would take at least several hundred billion years to form, thirty times longer than the time since the supposed Big Bang. The results also show that the abundance of clusters of galaxies falls off suddenly by about a factor of ten – on a redshift of 0.59. The researchers who first did the survey tried to explain this sudden fall as evolution, that there were suddenly ten times as many clusters, since closer distances translate to more recent times. If that was the case the evolution would have taken about 180 million years. That’s not enough time for huge clusters of galaxies to form. Also the redshift readings are not consistent. If it was due to evolution, the abundance of cluster drop-offs would appear at the same redshift in all directions and they don’t. A second group of discoveries was announced at an American Astronomical Society meeting in January 2004 and showed that the universe looks very similar at high redshifts - and therefore billions of years ago - as it does today. The Big Bang idea postulates that a younger universe will look far different. The large scale structures that exist today existed at redshifts corresponding to three billion years after the hypothetical date of the Big Bang. Such structures had only one quarter as much time to grow. And galaxies from that 10-billion-years-ago epoch appear to have a similar distribution of stellar ages, and a similar amount of chemical elements produced by stars, as our present-day galaxy. If the Big Bang really happened, galaxies should appear much younger, with mostly young stars and few heavy metals. Instead they look much the same as today. The Big Bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies are too old, they cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in present day galaxies going at speeds far in excess of those observed. Observing these velocities tells us that these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang. The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 contradict each other, and the predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion. Another prediction of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy, as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is constant with increasing distance for similar objects. In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, should decrease. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe, and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. There is not enough mass in our galaxy to account for its tendency not to disintegrate, hence the invention of hypotheticals like dark matter. Big Bang cosmology required copious amounts of reasoning to keep explaining the galactic concentrations of matter in a universe that was supposed to inflate at a speed that doesn’t add up, and astro-physicists came up with too many hypothetical entities like cold dark non-baryonic matter and dark energy field, and the inflation field, which are different from any matter observed on Earth, to overcome anomalies in theory and observation. No evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three things. There have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have looked for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without that hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict a smooth cosmic background radiation. Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy. Dark energy is akin to ‘gravity that repels’, and the theory is always changing. While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs (dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy, and warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies, show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, leaving no room for extra dark matter. The hypothetical dark energy field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. That violates the laws of the conservation of energy and matter. If you trashed this basic conservation law in any other field of physics it wouldn’t be accepted yet it is done to keep alive the Big Bang theory. Fred Hoyle, one of the most controversial astronomers of the century, said the Big Bang refers to an epoch that couldn’t be reached by any form of astronomy, he wrote in 1994. Astrophysicists found that galactic cores exhibit highly concentrated energies that normal objects operating gravitationally could not, an infinite concentration of mass called a ‘black hole’. It led to even more contradictions. New telescopes revealed material erupting in explosions from galactic cores. That contradicts the assertion that ‘nothing, not even light, can escape black holes’. So they came up with the accretion disk - and a magnetic field, which is true but they did not give its cause as being electric currents. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was the originator of the black hole but he could not swallow the rest of the physics that were beyond being testable hypotheses. Alfvén instead proposed in 1937 that our galaxy contains a large scale magnetic field of charged particles moving in spiral orbits. What is the nature of our misunderstood sun? To most people it is a self-consuming nuclear furnace that will fizzle out one day when there is no more hydrogen left to sustain future reactions. It implies, again, disconnection - that the sun is an isolated nuclear bomb consuming itself over its lifetime to provide us with heat and light. But what if this model is wrong? The whole premise is falsely rooted in gravity, again, thought as the master drawing force behind the universe. We’ve seen the sun’s corona in an eclipse - it’s a region of plasma that extends more than a million kilometres from the sun’s surface where the temperature rises beyond two million degrees. But the surface itself reaches only five or six thousand degrees. How can heat from the inner core hot up the atmosphere to millions of degrees while the surface remains at thousands of degrees? But if the sun is CONNECTED to the galaxy in an electrical circuit it does not need to burn itself from the inside-out at all, and the energy we receive is actually the energy from the galaxy, with the sun acting as a focus for that energy. It has a corona because it is an electrical phenomenon. The sun has complex magnetic fields, and only electricity can produce magnetic fields. Sunspots are things that also behave in the opposite manner to what you’d expect of an entitiy burning from a hotter core radiating energy into space. The 11-year cycle mystery and granulated appearance of the sun’s photosphere is not explained by the thermonuclear model, according to which, sunspots have no business being there. (Ronald Giovanelli wrote in Secrets of the Sun: “They should be heated quickly from the sides and disappear. They should never have formed — but they do form. Their behavior is so strange that there is still argument between scientists as to why they are there at all.”) Sunspots are clearings in the tufts where the dark discharge from an equatorial plasma toroid encircling the Sun punches through them and the cycles are caused by varying current input to the sun. Sunspots also are colder than the surrounding regions and that’s why they are dark. To explain this blatant anomaly astrophysicists have a warped explanation about twisted magnetic fields and the ‘solar dynamo’. These haven’t been observed or proven. And it is not expected at all if the Sun is trying to rid itself of heat but IS expected if the sun is electrical in nature. The umbra of a sunspot is the place where we can see down deepest into the sun. It SHOWS the cooler temperature is beneath the bright plasma. If the sun is trying to radiate energy away from its core into space as a nuclear reactor or furnace, we should expect that part of it at and near the surface to be the hottest and to be bright, but the sun is much, much cooler down there at 6,000K. At the corona high above it reaches 2,000 million Kelvin. So the sun has no nuclear engine at the centre. The incorrect assumption of what goes on inside the Sun gives rise to poor understanding of sunspots. How does the energy from the centre of the sun get past the surface to heat the upper atmosphere so? In the electric model if the energy is arriving from outside the sun, the atmosphere above the sun is the first place where you’d expect to see that energy expressed. That is where particle acceleration occurs. The fact that electrically charged particles in the solar wind accelerate and increase their velocity with increasing distance away from the sun – getting faster the further they go – means it is an electrical process. The sun is a positive anode of very high voltage emanating an electric field. If you put a charged particle in an electric field it will accelerate. Stars don’t burn themselves out. So there’s no direct evidence for the thermonuclear powered model of the Sun, and strong evidence against it. Astrophysicists claim that the solar fusion model of the working of the sun has been tested in a laboratory but nothing could be less true. The steps involved in fusing hydrogen to helium have been verified experimentally, indeed, but the overall reaction of continuous fusion hasn’t ever been produced in a lab. The strength of the electric cosmology is that all of the mechanisms that the electrical workings, plasma, you name it, have been verified in a lab. Electric cosmology explains all of these: heavy elements, solar spectrum, neutrino deficiency, neutrino variability, solar atmosphere, different rotation by latitude and depth, equatorial plasma torus, and sunspots, sunspot migration, penumbra, the sunspot cycle, the magnetic field, helioseismology, solar density, and the changing size – all kiabosh the solar fusion model and are all natural expected consequences looked at through the electrical sun model. But standard astronomy dismisses them as inconsequential difficulties that will someday be solved. This quote came from Ralph E Juergens in 1980: 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.” History has shown outsiders prove the biggest breakthroughs. Kristian Birkeland (1867-1917), the Norwegian scientist and Nobel Prize nominee, set up observatories in the Arctic Circle to study the Aurora Borealis. He theorized that the aurora is created by charged particle beams from the Sun. This has only recently been confirmed. Birkeland reproduced sunspot behavior in his famous Terrella experiments where he applied external electrical power to a magnetized globe suspended in a near vacuum. From the proof of his Terrella experiments they named the electric currents that flow through space after him – the ‘Birkeland currents’. They are twisting positive and negative energy flows but conventional astronomy twisted the name to ‘magnetic ropes’. Our sun like all stars is a variable star. It’s dependant upon its environment. It does not have an internal engine and the energy comes from the galaxy to provide a steady power supply for the sun. The sun plays its part – it has a mechanism in the photosphere. It is a transistor. The earth participates in that circuit. When the power in the sun changes above the photosphere where all the action takes place you get X-rays and UV light. In X-rays the sun goes dark – part of the solar cycle. The electrical supply to the sun is the major input to the earth and its weather and climate. What we do on earth isn’t responsible for climate change. If we don’t understand our sun, then we don’t understand ANY star. If you can’t observe what’s inside a star, how do you account for red giants and white dwarfs? Again, the conclusion about those bodies is reached from the theory that all stars use thermonuclear processes to produce light. Astronomers view them in terms of evolutionary sequences and say that a star in the ‘red giant stage’ of its existence runs out of non-renewable fuel as it nears the end point of its life and expands. Detailed observations of the behaviour of plasma discharge shows how red giants swell from much smaller stars. Glowing regions in a discharge tube will expand or contract when a voltage applied to it is varied. The star is in a phase of profound electron deficiency. It collects more electrons than the plasma can deliver to its surface continually. To maintain its current the anode expands its influence and forms a negative sheath which grows to a sufficient size to intercept random drifting electrons. The expanding sheath increases the size of the anode and the sheath’s electrical field grows stronger the bigger it expands. Electrons caught in the field become ever more energetic until they excite any neutral particles they happen to collide with. The electric field driving this process is why the sheath takes on the all-over red anode glow. It becomes a red giant star. The ‘stellar wind’ that occurs is a massive flow of positive ions away from the star The thermonuclear model can’t explain the loss of mass in red giants because if the star is cooling down it should be too ‘cold’ to boil off a stellar wind. Looked at in electric terms, the star isn’t old, but more like in a state of rebirth, a youngster shedding excess mass to begin its next stage of existence …on the main sequence. If the red giant shrinks, it’s because it’s reached a point where the neutral matter is ionized. Particles are not excited anymore by electrons bumped up to higher orbits. The collisions start to strip them of their electrons. The sheath glows faintly over the anode surface before breaking down, and suddenly the mode of the anode discharge changes. Small tufts of secondary plasma spring into being at points of intensified activity. The dull sheath produces bright anode plasma tufts of positive ions and free electrons that were not there before. (The red giant Betelgeuse is showing signs of this - it has been found to have a bright ‘hot spot’, which may be the beginnings of a main sequence star being born beneath the red anode glow.) Going to the other extreme the red giant then passes into the final ‘white dwarf’ stage where it collapses from being the size of a sun to smaller than Earth. The events required to make this happen in the star’s interior are unverifiable, because they are not seen. And the sequence has never been observed, they are just supposed; there is no experimental back-up. The concepts violate the basic rules of physics. When we observe matter being compressed by gravity we see it become a liquid or a solid. In the absence of an experiment a model is used by astrophysicists of a white dwarf ASSUMING the star’s matter to be electrically neutral. In an electric stellar model, its core is not phenomenally hot inside, so ionization is slight throughout the star. The nuclei in atoms are many thousands of times heavier than their electrons that orbit them. The nuclei are offset by gravity away from the centre of each atom towards the centre of the star giving each atom a tiny electric dipole. The dipoles line up. In doing so, they produce a radial electric field inside the star. That will cause any free electrons to drift to the star’s surface long before pressure can build up in the star and create density. Therefore gravitational compression will be opposed by the vastly stronger electric force generated by positive ions repelling negative ions within the star. The idea that faint white stars are collapsed ‘dwarfs’ comes from abstract reasoning and not from observation. Mass is not a measure of matter in a celestial body. Arriving at a figure for composition, density or internal structure through calculations from observing the gravitational effects in a star is unreliable. If you reject the idea that mass and matter are interchangeable, you are aware that matter won’t cause gravitational perturbation. The mass can change, without any change in how much matter there is, when electrical conditions change. Gravity is an induced SUBATOMIC dipolar electrical force. The terms ‘giant’ and ‘dwarf’ applied to stars mislead. Stars are mislabelled. Also the notion of a star’s age based on its appearance is not valid. It’s the nuclear model that puts a theoretical life-span on the star. In the electrical model the star’s brightness, colour and mass are not linear occurrences. They depend on the star’s electrical stage, on its plasma discharge at the anode exhibiting sharp discontinuities - not its age. Astronomers assume dull stars to be dwarfs by applying luminosity to mass. The electric model sees a white dwarf in relation to a multiple star system and expects periodic catastrophic releases of stored electrical energy. It would show up as a sudden discharge as wide as the star. A star is in direct contact with plasma from space approaching electrons that reach the star’s anode and satisfies the star’s discharge current. Experiments have shown that sheaths of plasma exist around space plasma and the star. In white dwarfs there is no intensely bright tufting in the plasma sheath, being in an environmental of lower than usual levels of electrical stress. In that environment of low energy discharge, the ambient plasma coming into direct contact with the star’s atmosphere leads to discharge without anode tufting which makes white dwarfs subject to flickering. Tufting at the anode gives luminosity to main sequence stars. The white colour and very high temperatures of white dwarfs is now understood. A thin plasma sheath is formed between the stellar and space plasmas. The electrical field running across the plasma sheaths can accelerate electrons. This generates X-rays when they hit atoms in the atmosphere. This raises the temperature. White dwarfs show broadening of spectral lines that you’d expect in the presence of an electrical field. A bigger star can cope with more electrical stress than a smaller one. White dwarfs may even be among the largest stars. Because the appearance of a star has nothing to do with its age that explains how white dwarfs appear in multiple star systems and how there are often two stars of the same age yet so very different, which baffles astronomers. An example is Sirius. The Chandra X-ray telescope revealed that Sirius B, the white ‘dwarf’, was the greater - the opposite of what human eyes can see. Stars are products of their electrical environment which makes the story of their birth, life and death wrong. Stars may change places overnight on the conventional charts of their evolution. In January 2002, an Australian amaeteur astronomer Nicholas Brown noticed a star in the constellation of V838 Monoceros that wasn’t there two weeks earlier.
AV838 Monoceros

Astronomers watched this seemingly new star over the next month as it became brighter than any other star in our galaxy and then faded away again. Then a few weeks later it was surrounded by an expanding glowing cloud. By March 2002 it had grown bigger than the sun by 800 times, and cooled down to 4,000 Kelvin, the coolest super giant ever seen. Seven months later, it was little more than 1,000K. Astronomers thought it to be a nova, and then realised it may be a newcomer. This erupting star’s transformation from a small dull star a bit hotter than the sun, to a really cool glowing super giant in the throes of complex rapid changes in luminosity, was witnessed in months. It may be that in our distant ancient past we had two suns. Binary star systems are allegedly more common out there mono ones. Aboriginal legends from Australia talk about two suns, a large sun and a lesser sun, and the lesser sun ‘hid in a hollow log’. The stories match what was pieced together by David Talbott and others when Wallace became fascinated with the writings from the 1970s of Velikovsky on Saturn, which he called the ‘Sun of Night’, that hints at the earth having two suns shining in the sky at one point. They pieced together the activities within and without the solar system at the time when the disturbances took place. Were the planets set in a different order in the ancient world? Something happened with Saturn. The Saturn you see today is a dim remnant of its former glory - ‘proto-Saturn’. Proto-Saturn was a brown dwarf star satellited by Titan, Mars, Venus and… Earth! We were not born here. All stars are enclosed in an electrical environment like an eggshell or cell, the plasma sheath containing the star’s electrical field. Beyond that sheath is the electrical field of the galaxy. When two stars come close together the first things to touch are the two sheaths, and when that happens for the first time, the two stars know of each other’s presence electrically. They would have known long before gravitationally, because gravity penetrates plasma sheaths and goes through these eggshells as if it’s not there. When Proto-Saturn met the sun’s electrical environment, they saw each other electrically. The voltage of the brown dwarf was much lower than that of the sun, and the sun took away its power. It was no longer a brown dwarf and became a giant stellar sized comet. Earth and Venus were enveloped in the plasma sheath of the comet tail of ex-proto Saturn. The Earth tailed along in this comet tail - and the lesser sun look as though it had been swallowed at the top of a hollow log! The most hospitable place for the nurturing of life is within the plasma sheaths of brown dwarf stars or dim stars, because when the power is turned down on a star the photosphere winks out – there is no longer that bright display and instead you get a neon glow. This is very extensive and goes out some distance from the central object. Satellites lucky enough to orbit in this red glow of that brown dwarf can do so comfortably. This is apparently the orbit the earth was in before the encounter with the sun. Inside that cocoon of dim red radiation there are no seasons. Everything and everybody everywhere, be they on the pole or on the equator, inside that cocoon receives the same amount of radiation, regardless of the axial tilt. The evidence that the earth was in this environment is the coal beds in the Antarctica. The growth of vegetation was once very lush globally. We had tropical forests in Antarctica. Megafauna, and megaflora, could grow. Conditions were ideal, and that was the kind of environment where you would find life. It would be abundant. We had red light in abundance, which is essential for photosynthesis. You would have been orbiting inside a glowing plasma sheath that radio waves can’t penetrate, so you wouldn’t see the stars, you’d just have this purplish glow because you’d UV light at the same time. The consequence is the legendary ‘purple dawn of creation’. That was the kind of light the earth existed in. And in that electrical environment, the earth’s gravity was much less, by about one third! Huge animals like dinosaurs could flourish. In today’s gravity, because of its weight, a dinosaur wouldn’t be able to lift itself onto its feet without breaking every bone in its body. It wouldn’t survive. Pterodactyls wouldn’t be able to rise off the ground and fly. So conditions were different then, to now, and this ties in with the extinction of the dinosaurs when we became part of this solar system with a G class star. Life wouldn’t have arisen in this precarious and rare existence that we have now. Brown dwarfs are the most plentiful stars. When astronomers began looking for exo-planets, they were amazed to find so many huge gas giant planets orbiting very close to their parent star. This is at odds with how our solar system formed, because a gas giant is not suppoed to have been accreted with heavier material from the inner solar system because they consist of light elements like hydrogen and helium which could only accumulate in the outer regions of the solar system - yet had nearby gas giants orbiting their parent star, in a matter of days in some cases. That’s another bummer for the standard theory. Another ad-hoc idea out of the millions tossed into the pot when the basic model is incorrect: the gas giants must somehow have ‘orbited in close to the star’, having been formed way out in the distance and migrated inwards. Why hasn’t Earth migrated in then in that case? It’s not gravitational accretion that creates stars it’s the kind of thing you see in lightning where there’s a powerful lightning strike compressing the surrounding atmosphere. Most of the sun’s planets were not born with the sun they’ve been captured since. Venus is a new planet, that’s why it’s so hot and why it’s atmosphere so so dense. It was born from Saturn in its process of achieving electrical stability by discharging part of its charged core when it entered the sun’s environment. Electrical bodies expel material in an attempt to achieve stability, creating all manner of debris like rings, moons, comets etc, creating a subsidiary object in space, and Venus is such an object. Saturn’s rings are such objects – they are water ice expulsion rings that cannot have been there all that long. That’s where earth got all its water, from its parent Saturn. The weird hexagonal shape on Saturn’s pole is a remant of the time when Saturn was a minor sun. Mars and the Earth are family members that were partnered with Saturn because each spinning planet acts like a giant gyroscope, meaning that the axist points to the same place in inertial space. The axial tilts of Saturn, Mars and Earth are within a degree of or so of each other. But the moon and Mercury have the same parent. The moon was captured by the earth electrically. Exchange of charge varies the gravitational mass of an object and captures the orbit quite quickly. That is the missing mechanism that stops astronomers from postulating capture as a very likely mechanism as well as not discarding Einstein’s idea of gravity. In the electric model it is THE mechanism for capturing bodies. The electrical nature of mass is embodied in the structure of protons, electrons and neutrons and in a large massive body they form tiny electric dipoles. Gravity is always an attractive. Why? Because they are rotating electric dipoles like magnets lining up in the same direction, and all subatomic - and the distortion of an electron or a proton or a neutron is so minute that the dipole force is reduced to 40 orders of magnitude over the naked electric force. It shows Newton’s law of gravity is correct, BUT, the so-called gravitation constant, G, is not constant at all, it is an electrical variable. Transferring charge from one body to another causes the gravity between them to change. The bodies will tend to move apart and move in a way that will prevent collision. An asteroid would be destroyed by a cosmic thunderbolt before it could hit earth. Tommy Gold, another maverick scientist, pointed out that one of the problems on the moon with the cratering was that they tend to occur in pairs or groups. It doesn’t match simple impacts but it does match lightning impacts – one bolt carves a crater and subsidiary bolts carve smaller ones, that’s why large craters with a lot of small craters dotted along the rim are seen, with the smaller ones cutting through the larger ones, not the other way round. This diagnoses an electrical discharge impact, not impact with a comet or asteroid or anything else. Cometary collisions with the Earth are a fantasy! The dumb doomsday is fanciful. Shoemaker Levy did not impact Jupiter. In the discharges from Jupiter’s ionosphere and the upper atmosphere below the ionosphere, the object is destroyed by the bolt from the planet that shoots a jet of material into the stratosphere and it comes down electrically in a ring. So lightning bolts from Jupiter destroyed the incoming objects and created the characteristic plasma gun discharge scars – the circular rings. They are NOT fall-out from an explosion. That’s why they didn’t see all the water they expected from the comet. The pictures you see in magazines of a comet smashing into the Earth are science fiction because there’s not a thunderbolt in sight. Beware of mythology - descriptions of ‘water above and beneath the earth’ were plasma phenomena in space mistaken for shimmering water by their appearance. Myths and legends are misinterpreted. You won’t find any reference to electric discharge in cosmology anywhere. The subject is not taught in astrophysics. Their training does not give astrophysicists authority to judge an electric discharge theory of stars. Research into plasma discharge phenomena is the domain of the the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers. The reason we see magnetic fields in space everywhere is because electric currents produce them. And ONLY electric currents produce them. Because astronomers ignore these they did not expect the magnetic fields that keep on pervading in deep space. These create filaments which intertwine together and this is how they carry electricity through vast distances in space. Plasma experiments in a laboratory show the particles following patterns that look like a spiral galaxy and had exactly the same rotational properties as real galaxies. The comet tops the evidence quota for an electrical universe. When Comet Holmes exploded it brightened by one million times in forty two hours and was visible to the naked eye. It was only three and a half kilometres in diameter and expanded into a fantastic coma of fine dust the diameter of the sun! But it barely even made headlines. The explanation? Exploding gas from within the comet. Yet Holmes is moving AWAY from the sun, a lame argument. Where the energy becomes more concentrated we see sparks in a discharge of electricity (e.g. comet Hale Bopp). The standard theory of comets is that the solar system was formed by a rotating cloud of gas and dust, the planets formed mostly from gas and dust and the left-overs were confined to the outside the solar system in a hypothetical Oort Cloud, as it is called. Wallace says there isn’t even any observational evidence of there being such a cloud. The electric model of cosmology and comets is that they are parts of planetary bodies that have in the past suffered electrical plasma discharge machining where some of the surface material has wafted into space, hence it is rocky. Because comets have elongated orbits, its voltage changes in trajectory. As the comet spends most of its time in the outer solar system the voltage it has reflects the voltage there. When it approaches the sun, the voltage changes rapidly and causes the comet to discharge. That’s how we see the coma and tails – they look like shooting stars. When Halley was observed close up by several spacecraft, astronomers were surprised to see material coming off it in jets and circular areas; but the standard model came up with the explanation that it was coated with a black tarry stuff or something preventing the material from evaporating. However, later images were observed as spacecraft passed other comets. Comets Borrelly, Temple One and Wild 2 showed it wasn’t like a melted ice cream but pieces of solid cratered rock. This makes sense with the electric model of an electrical discharge of such a body, in order words there’s very little distinction between an asteroid and a comet other than its orbit. In July 2005 NASA crashed its proble called Deep Impact into Comet Temple One. If the comet was a charged body, as a metal such as copper approached it, the comet should spark an electric discharge to that copper projectile. There would be a flash before the impact. The astronomers thought the impact would produce no more than a small puff of dust. But no. The immense flash of light was so bright it overwhelmed the sensors recording the event. NASA didn’t bank on this hapapening, but a team of plasma cosmologists at predicted it spot on. In 2000 Comet Linear became more than twice as bright in less than four hours and threw off colossal amounts of dust and started to emit X-rays - a tell-tale sign of intense electrical activity. So-called experts never cease to be dumbfounded by ‘mysterious’ occurrences with comets. So, electrical explanation: the comet is an electrical body beginning to discharge as it enters the inner solar system – very successful in predicting comets before. The standard explanation: ‘dirty snowballls’: dust and ice left over from the formation of the solar system – well and truly dead. If you go by the standard model, you are asking ices to evaporate, it won’t create fine dust. Immanuel Velikovsky challenged that the solar system had electromagnetic forces to take into account. Ralph Juergens was an early pioneer in addressing the electrical phenomena of comets. It was he who posed the electrical model of the sun. In the electrical model of the solar system, anyone moving towards or away from the sun at any great speed like a comet will experience electrical effects which create a comet-like appearance. The hairy and feathery electric attributes of the spark in the laboratory also explain these attributes. The same characteristics are seen in enhanced images of the comet and in comet-like discharges from distant nebulae. Gases in a vacuum don’t behave this way, but electrified plasma does. The recent discoveries about the comet have astonished astronomers. Extreme UV light, X-rays, supersonic jets, cometary nuclei fragmenting explosively. Such high energy events were not envisaged. The electric model proposes that the comet is a charged object moving through an electric field. It changes everything. What creates this electric field? We’re talking electric sun, electric stars…electric cosmology. Earthquakes are likened to underground thunder and rattle like the sound of thunder. Both thunder and earthquakes are due to electrical discharge. The electric model of gravity suggests that every moon, comet, planet is built like an electret with a sustained electric charge on it, the electric field is internal to the object, every planet acts like an electret. There is electrical stress inside the body. If when it is discharging it into space in the form of storms and auroral storms there is a sufficient transfer of electrical charge from the surface of the earth, the electric stress within the earth is increased. It will break down at some point. There is actually a lightning bolt underground. The Chilean earthquake was something like ten thousand Hiroshimas. This phenomenon has always been put down to ‘pent up stress within rocks’. But the scientist Freundlich (he had trouble getting his work published) pointed out that if you stress a rock, it acts like a semi-conductor and can transfer charge from one place to the other end of the rock metres away. Underground that can go vast distances. You will get the strange phenomena associated with earthquakes before during and after, one of thich is build-up of charge in the ionosphere – lights. We’re talking electrical earth. Same with a volcano. Another example of where the gravitational cosmological model has falsified itself is the stellar object known as a pulsar. Standard theory says these are neutron stars that emit a beam of electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio waves and rotation of the pulsar combined with the beam creates that pulsing effect. There is a problem with this model. Some pulsars have a pulse rate so high that they should fly apart if they are not to contravene known conventional laws of nuclear chemistry that prevent packing neutrons so tightly together as the hypothesis goes. The myth of the ‘neutron star’ was invented to plug this hole which can’t explain the observed evidence without resorting to abstract physics to bamboozle us away from the truth. We are part of the sun’s environment which is part of the galaxy’s environment and so on. We are connected. This approach of plasma cosmology suggests a universe with no beginning or ending, and far better explains what we know of the cosmos. So. Today’s gravity-centric astronomers in the mainstream have an astronomical problem. They thought space was a vacuum but it has been found alive and kicking with plasma and electromagnetism. Billions of dollars have been invested in obfuscation. Hands-on experiments have been replaced with maths and sophisticated theories; less exotic plasma doesn’t appreciate the elegant mathematical laws, and scientists stick their noses up wandering off through equation after equation, as Nikola Tesla said. Hannes Alfvén said the same thing. He said the peer review system is satisfactory when the establishment wants to preserve the status quo in a discipline like science but not during any revolution in science. They laughed at Faraday (1791-1867) when he created an electric current by moving a magnet inside a coil of wire. They called him a fraud and a charlatan. They laughed at Kristian Birkeland for suggesting the auroras were powered electrically even though his Terrella experiments proved it. They sidelined Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995), he could only get his work published in Russian or in obscure journals. He said gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems. The cosmological implications of his work are overlooked. In the movie ‘The Hunt for Red October’ there is a Russian submarine powered by a Magnetohydrodynamic drive. Magnetohydrodynamics was pioneered by Alfvén. EM is 10^39 more powerful than gravity. EM forces are longer ranged. Gravity is described as a property of mass, yet there isn’t enough mass in most galaxies to account for why they don’t disintegrate. Neat models based simply on gravity don’t accommodate EM’s complexity. Mysterious undetected dark stuff and kludge factors in vogue of late was invented to balance out the equations and given a high ranking of 90% existence in the universe…which makes observations irrelevant. It makes the dominant forces in nature hypothetical. Magnetic fields and electric currents can’t be divorced from each other. So many phenomena in space scream electricity, while the mainstream word quibbles to make electrodynamic phenomena fit fluid dynamics, using terminology like ‘ion storms’ and ‘electron rains’. Cosmic tornadoes puzzle astronomers because their heads are stuck inside gravitational and fluid dynamics. The classic signatures of plasma/EM behaviour – spiralling, beading, kinking, sawtooth patterns - are expected in an electrodynamic universe. One of the most popular fallacies is black holes. No-one has ever actually observed a black hole, only the energetic effect surrounding the hypothetical object. There are numerous logical problems with this hypothesis, evidencing that black holes were conjured up out of nothing to explain compact energetic activity coming from the centres of galaxies. They used gravity as the tool of choice because they claimed this to be the dominant force of the universe. When observed data conflicted astrophycisists tweaked the model using abstract gravitational mathematics. The black hole was based on theoretical assumptions resulting from a mathematical error of dividing any number by zero to get infinity. A school boy would be told off for making this error. But professional mathematicians got away with waiving a notion of a point of zero volume with infinite mass – it’s a trick that’s been pulled off to balance equations and make up the weak force in Gravity and shortfall of mass in most galaxies. A point is mathematical object, not a physical one. No one has ever observed a point. The mathematician Stephen J Crothers said: “Nature does not make points.” The hub of compact phenomenal energy at the centre of most galaxies is a plasma focus of huge electromagnetic forces. The plasma focus device has been tested in a lab. It can be scaled up by 14 orders of magnitude, like EM can. More than enough energy of for super-massive black hole. Alfvén said electrodynamic processes can explain the effects that are coming from what are alleged to be black holes, like radio noises and rapid flickering. Plasmas are the end product. Seems that does away with black holes. Einstein himself, the father of general relativity, didn’t believe in them. (Quote from the man himself: “Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it anymore.”) If a black hole could have infinite gravity, in order that it doesn’t gobble us all up and that would be the end of everything, the alleged infinite forces needed to have a finite limit – this is an assumed, hypothetical Event Horizon. What is an event horizon? A point of no return, a zone where gravity forever holds all matter and energy prisoner. No one has ever seen an actual event horizon. Astronomers saw immense jets of matter (charged particles) not being pulled in but being spat out from regions where the black hole was supposed to be – something was wrong. A black hole is supposed to suck matter in, and instead of questioning the theory, they made adjustments and made another invention ad hoc, an ‘accretion disk’. Now you have the ‘accretion disk’ to accelerate away all the matter away the black hole. This sleight of hand deals with the problem of the jets, and the young hot stars found there which should be sucked into oblivion. A simple, logical contradiction has resulted in yet another hypothetical object being invented. It violated the gravitational dogma they were desperate to cling on to - the original theory is that a black hole is not supposed to even let light escape; the accretion disk is prescribed as ‘there, your evidence for the hidden black hole’. An untested, unobserved abstract piece of physics conjured out of thin air out of desperation. Also that theory was convenient because if the light’s gone a black hole can’t be observed, and one hasn’t been. Alfvén proposed instead that our galaxy contained at the centre a large-scale electromagnetic field, exerting forces that cause charged particles to orbit in it in a spiral. It is immense plasma focuses at the centre of galaxies that throws out matter perpendicular to the plane the galaxy. You have to have the understanding that plasma carries electrical currents and THEY create the magnetic field, as Alfvén did. A spiral pattern is the tell-tale mark of an EM field. Gravity does not explain spiral patterns being found everywhere in nature, on Earth as well as in the cosmos. Galaxies are not oriented randomly in space, and billions have been spent on CERN to find the God particle that this gravitational model rests on. Theory of gravitation is simply INCOMPLETE. Then there’s the redshift controversy. It destroys the expanding universe theory and the big bang theory. Redshift is supposed to determine the distance of objects from earth. Redshift is not a measure of velocity of recession and is more related to age than to distance. The universe is much smaller than we think. Dr Halton Arp the expert astronomer did a good catalogue of extragalactic objects and found galaxies with different redshifts that were connected to each other. That falsifies the redshift=distance hypothesis. The Seyfert Galaxy NGC7603 is an example. The main galaxy is connected to a smaller formation through an arm of plasma called a filament. The smaller formation has a much higher redshift value than the bigger formation – the main active galaxy. Rather than acknowledge this the experts have put this down to chance locations in the same section of the sky. Our sun is powered electrically - where does it get its power from? The galaxy has electric currents flowing in it – where do they flow and how are they generated? We are connected! Radio astronomers mapped the current flows by the radio signals they give off and found that galaxies are strung like Catherine wheels in huge intergalactic filaments. It seems electric power from the galaxy actually forms galaxies and stars themselves. Tapping into the zero point field for free energy is indeed possible. It’s a longitudinal signal, not shielded by plasma sheaths in space, the kind of thing that Tesla was playing with, and the only way to communicate beyond the earth. Electrical signalling is way too slow and that’s why we wouldn’t hear from ET via the SETI project is because it is using the wrong signalling technique. Most of the ‘discoveries’ now are merely computer generated virtual reality. Esoteric mathematics and being told you have to be a mathematical genius makes it hard for anyone to get the big picture because it’s boring. The jargon has become so obscure and obtuse you have to work hard to understand what’s being said. We have to get back to common language and common sense. Our ignorance is so profound since we’ve got so much wrong, we have to start over again and show some humility this time – but the electric universe does not require any patching. Let’s go where no man has gone before.

Total Pageviews