Ebook of 17 (7.7 MB) pages crammed with Wallace Thornhill's content leading the reader through a series of steps
involving challenges to some of the foundational aspects of the
prevailing cosmology. These include the mass=matter assumption, gravity.
the nature of light, catastrophism, the birth of planets and stars, and
the nature of redshift and how that relates to gravity and mass. All of
this treats the reader to a remarkable dissertation on the new
cosmology. Thornhill's answers to major issues, questions, and problems are
different but consonant with the facts and the EU paradigm.
Wrong or Blind
The Electric Universe (EU) raises a scandalous
question: How could millions of intelligent, conscientious
astronomers for centuries have been wrong? They didn’t just overlook
a few details, they missed the entire picture.
The EU says the universe runs on electricity,
not on gravity. It says the astronomers have been examining
an electric motor and trying to explain it with angular momentum,
mass, and inertia. They’ve ignored the wires and only recently have
become aware of the magnetic fields, which they dismiss as
But it’s wrong to say they were wrong. Until
now, the gravity point of view was reasonable for the data at hand.
Humans have no senses that detect electricity. Our perception of it
has been limited to the occasional lightning strike and the shocks
we get from doorknobs after shuffling across the carpet. Our senses
are geared—not wired!—for mechanics. Furthermore, we reasonably
believe that if we don’t see anything else, then nothing else is
there: I’ll believe there’s electricity in space when I see
electricity in space.
Only recently have people invented instruments
that detect electricity; still more recently have they sent them
into space. The instruments have been going crazy, but astronomers
are not prepared to listen: For them, the instrumental chattering is
Electrical engineers and experimental plasma
physicists are somewhat better prepared. They’ve been listening to
the chatter of the instruments in their labs for several decades.
They recognize the same messages from the instruments in space:
Birkeland currents. Plasma-focus plumes. Electrical discharge
instabilities. Circuits. Double layers. Critical ionization
velocities. Microwave background radiation.
“But we already have an explanation,” the
astronomers say. This is special pleading to sneak familiar
assumptions past critical review. The argument of the “already
explained” is circular. The urgent question is not about explaining
but about preferring: which explanation to choose and what criteria
to use for making that decision. The EU doesn’t add to
received theories, it replaces received theories. It rejects
the consensus theories at the level of initial assumptions: the
empirically discovered electromagnetic properties of plasma are
preferred over the theoretically extrapolated hypotheses of
gravitation, gas, thermodynamics, and particle physics.
The numbers that the instruments have collected
are orders of magnitude greater than what mechanical theories can
handle: A millions-of-degrees corona outside a thousands-of-degrees
photosphere. Steady radiation from the photosphere and wildly
varying radiation from the corona. A spinning photosphere that
should be flattened by mechanical force but is squeezed by some
greater force into a nearly perfect sphere. Plasma sheaths,
euphemistically called magnetospheres (except when there’s no
magnetic field to take the blame, as in comets—or Venus). Toroidal
currents, passed over as radiation belts and accretion disks. Axial
discharge channels, mystified with talk about reified lines of force
that get twisted by the rotating speck below.
The numbers are in the ballpark of electrical
theories. Instead of learning about electrical theories, astronomers
are stitching patches of fantasy over gravitational theories to
cover the bloated numbers: Neutron stars and black holes, to cram
enough mass—mistaken as matter—into a small enough space to eke out
enough energy to match what’s observed. Ultra-low densities of atoms
in the coldness of space yet so hot that they radiate x-rays.
Although the atoms would be completely ionized at that temperature,
they bump into each other as though they were a gas experiencing
shock waves or gravitational collapse. The result has been that that
the theories have disappeared beneath the stitches: Modern astronomy
is an ugly patchwork of ill-fitting ad hoc rags.
For anyone familiar with the behavior of
plasma, the patches of fantasies are absurd. So the question returns
with this correction: It’s not that astronomers for centuries have
been wrong but that modern astronomers, in an age that has become
aware of plasma, can be so deliberately blind to what’s before their