The Other Model of the Universe (Are You a Child of Saturn?)

by Liam Scheff

Today’s astronomers ask us to believe that the universe emerged, by accident, from a null point – a nothing – which expanded or exploded, and slowed, and sped up, and now is doing something confusing…

They call this the ‘Big Bang’: First there was nothing, which exploded.”* (How Biblical!)

boom!

The model continues down its path. Stars and planets were formed when dust balls somehow piled up and became nuclear furnaces in space (stars), or rocky globs rolling around them.

This model was proposed by various philosophers, including Immanuel Kant, in the 1700s. And it is what NASA holds to be true, 250 years later. The trouble is, none of these ideas has proven testable, and none has proven true by observation of the universe through modern telescopes.

Left – An artist’s rendition of how the solar system formed. Dust swirled around and became planets. This is NASA’s current best scientific theory of how the Earth came into existence. Right – Immanuel Kant, NASA Engineer

Electricity Versus Gravity

The “Big Bang” model is based entirely in the notion that gravity, a very weak force, is the only power at work in all the universe. Astronomers have no idea how gravity works, or what powers it, only that it exists. Gravity is a force whose power of attraction falls away at the square of the distance (it weakens exponentially with distance). But NASA misses the forest and the trees. Outer space is not ‘gravity only;’ it is electrified plasma.

Space plasma is a low-density mix of atoms and molecules, in which electrons are stripped from atomic nuclei. The nucleus becomes a positively charged ‘ion’ and the free electrons are negative ‘ions.’ These charged particles attract, repel, squeeze and shape material in outer space.

Space then, is a web, a field, a series of flowing, layered, pinching, rotating currents, rivers and oceans of charged, powerful particles. Powerful because the attracting force does not fall off at the square of distance. And the electromagnetic attracting force is 10 to the 39th power stronger than gravity.

That is, the attraction in a plasma is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than gravity to begin with, and does not fall off quickly, but only with distance, not distance squared.

In this universe, then, gravity is not king, or even queen. Plasma and electromagnetism rule – but NASA has not rolled the Big Bang model over yet, and so does not figure this reality into its 18th Century model of stars and planets.


– Electrical currents in space

The Plasma Model of Planetary Formation

There is an alternative argument to this 18th Century ‘gravity dust accumulation’ notion of planet and star formation. The theory goes like this: Small rocky planets aren’t dust balls that slowly build up, but are born in one piece, ejected from stars, in a process of electrical fissioning. That is, stars expel, or really give birth to planets, and even other smaller stars.

There is astronomical evidence to support the theory: Stars that were single, suddenly revealed to be twin suns, as though one split or was ejected from the other. Add to that the very high number of binary (twin) stars in general, indicating this electrical ‘fissioning’ is a common phenomenon. And gas giant planets (or low-glow stars) appearing where they should not be – in close orbit around larger suns – indicating that they were fissioned or split off of the larger, brighter star.

And then there is the plenitude of tiny ‘planetary’ systems – rocky moons, asteroids, and debris rings swirling around our gas giants – Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. The great rings of gas giants, and those circling nearby stars may, in fact, be cosmic ‘afterbirth’ of mass expulsions and fissioning of material.


– Saturn’s Rings – Gravitationally Attracted Debris or Expelled Planetary Placenta? (Credit – NASA)

What does this mean in our Solar System? If the proposed model is true, then the small planets around our current Sun – Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury – were ejected from Saturn or Jupiter, and stolen by the larger star at a later point in time. And that our odd assortment of gas giants in the outer solar system may have been captured by our larger sun at intervals, electromagnetically.

The model is called various things; “The Saturn Myth” among them. It is interesting, as it is embedded in the observation of the universe as an electrical field, a plasma sea, charged particles forming an endless series of circuits.

It is, in that sense, testable, or at least, testable by observation, and in laboratory experiment with electrified plasma. The Big Bang and ‘gravity collapse’ model of stars and planets is not. It’s a ‘singularity.’ A one-off, a stunt. Or, at least, nothing like it has ever been observed.

Star Birth, and Planets Too?

Astronomers observe that stars are formed in the hot dense plasma ‘forges’ of nebulae. And, the competitive theory argues, planets are born – ejected – from red and brown dwarf stars.

In the words of Plasma Cosmologist Wal Thornhill:

“The smallest and coolest stars are known as red or brown dwarfs. Astronomers view them as “failed” stars but by flaring and forming polar jets they refuse to lie down. The reason is simple. All stars continue to receive electrical energy from the galactic electrical umbilical cords that gave them their existence. And the flaring of brown dwarfs signals the birth of a planet.”

The model then goes like this:

The inner planets were ejected from one of the gas giants in our current solar system. They were satellites of that gas giant.

To quote Thornhill:

“At different times in the dim past, Earth, Mars and other satellites were ejected from their flaring parent brown dwarf star to form a compact planetary system within the extensive anode glow of their star. That dwarf star drifted into the huge electrical environment of a much larger star (our current Sun), which switched off the red anode glow of our dwarf parent and forced it into the role of a discharging cathode, or comet, drawn toward the Sun.

That gas giant dwarf star (ie Saturn, Jupiter) came into proximity of a much larger star (our current Sun), which drew the ion flow, and reduced the glow of the dwarf star.

Hot Jupiters
– Jupiter or Star? Both… Note, the scale of this artist’s image is incorrect; the glow of a brown dwarf is huge, and, to quote Thornhill, “is able to accommodate orbiting planets within a natal cocoon.”

The model of stars here is electrical. These large electromagnetic bodies are the anode, the receiving end of a galactic flow of electrons – charged particles. This means that stars are not nuclear bombs in space, but rather electrical collection or attraction points. Is it so? If stars were heated from the outside, then they would have to be hotter on the outside than on the inside. Hotter still above the surface, where electrical power lines converge.

Stars are Hotter on the Outside?

Astronomers, faced with realities that they cannot fit into current models, fudge and fidget and stuff them into unresolved “problems.” Here is the uncomfortable observation: Stars, and our sun, are hotter, by a factor of millions of degrees, far above the actual body, than on or below the star’s surface. Astronomers call this the “solar corona heating problem.” And they cannot explain it by their model. They try, by breaking all laws of heating and physics, but mostly, they ignore it, and hope nobody notices. (So, pay attention).

But it makes sense in the plasma model. Stars are anodes – receivers of galactic charge – and the circuit lines, running as a plasma through space, converge on the stellar body, bursting into the bright glow of ‘arc mode’ plasma, of varying intensity and color. So, let’s bury the fiction of ‘dust clumping together to form nuclear furnaces.’ We have a better model: Stars are electromagnetically driven bodies, and not ‘nuclear bombs.’

Sun - hotter on the outside
– The Sun’s temperature increases with distance away from surface, then drops off.

So, where does that leave us?

Plasma researchers, looking at ancient human civilizations, have come across a series of repeated motifs, or etchings, images, cave-paintings, all around the globe, at the same historical point. They look like – well, you can have a look – kind of like oddly dancing human, or quasi-human forms. And then a series of concentric circles. And then a pillar reaching up to the sky, where those circles are.

And these researchers make some interesting points.

The dancing men look like plasma discharges in space. They look entirely like the shape of a plasma torus or a predictable, reproducible shape of electric current flowing through space, as seen from a distance, from one angle or another.

The concentric, and then off-center rings look like an alignment of planets in an ‘eclipse’ formation; but figure large in the sky, and were so stable so as to burn into memory worldwide. That is, they were so often repeated, goes the hypothesis, that they were a constant figure, and therefore were drawn, sketched, carved, and became central figures in world mythology.

Hesitations…

I was a little averse to the above theory when I first entered a study of plasma cosmology. But I will admit it has a strong attraction over time. The idea that Earth has changed dramatically is evidenced in the different gravity the planet has, or must have had, if dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. Paleontologists will tell you that the beasts were too large to function or even exist in current gravity.

Too Big to Fly
– Too Big to Fly (Gravity was Less Powerful)

The presence of forests in the Antarctic, of great polar shifts, of mass extinctions, of global catastrophe, all struggle to find a rationale in any current explanation. But they can be understood in a volatile, electrical universe.

Couple these observations with the worldwide fascination with the pillar building to the sky, worshiping the plasma charged passing bodies – mythologized or interpreted as sky gods, issuing thunder and lightning… it builds in the mind, and perhaps the mythic memory.

Plasma Men
– Dancing Plasma (Credit: Anthony Peratt, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science)


– Wheels in the Sky (Credit and Copyright: Rens van der Sluijs)

In any case, please have a look into it. At least for the plasma science – it’s resilient, testable, and makes sense of the world we live in, from the microscopic to the interstellar, where our current gravity-only models fail entirely.

Fissioning Stars, by Liam Scheff

– Fissioning Stars, artwork by Liam Scheff

Further Reading

Thanks to Wal Thornhill, Michael Gmirkin and others for a helpful proof-read and suggestions.

* To paraphrase Terry Pratchett: “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.”

Liam

9 Comments

  1. Another excellent article, Liam. You capture the big picture beautifully in a relatively brief but punchy article.

    Plasma Cosmology / Electric Universe is the only way forward to understanding the world we live in. Gravitational cosmology is drowning in a sea of exotic hyptoheticals and mathematical abstractons. It is now little more than a joke.

    • Thanks David! It’s such a fun subject… It’s just fascinating, and unlike a lot of the other medical fraud and dreck I research, it’s, well, fun! Exciting and inspiring. Points to so many wonderful possibilities.

  2. “This model was proposed by various philosophers, including Immanuel Kant, in the 1700s. And it is what NASA holds to be true, 250 years later. The trouble is, none of these ideas has proven testable, and none has proven true by observation of the universe through modern telescopes.”

    Have you heard of cosmic microwave background radiation?

    • Hi Anon,

      Sure. And have you? The ‘CMV,’ or background fog in our little corner of the galaxy, is used by Big Bang true-believers to convince themselves that once, a long, long time ago, nothing exploded into everything. Don’t ask me how or why they use local radiation as a measure of such a non-event… It’s worth noting that the Banger’s ‘predictions’ of what ‘should be’ the CMV level, varied wildly, and had to be tamed not by observation, but by consensus agreement. Pretty boring. And have the decency to use your name next time.

  3. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/22/evidence-of-elusive-god-particle-fades/

    God Particle. Does proving it exists prove God exists? Does proving it doesn’t exist prove that God works in mysterious ways to hide the truth from us and make us question our faith in Him?

    For Scientism, I think it doesn’t matter. The entire article is just a preview of the future where they ask for a little more money to prove their theory or create these “new physics”. Is their “Theory of Everything” breaking down to the point where they need to invent some new story for us to believe? At a cost of course. Does “new physics” mean “new religion”? I was just starting to get used to the idea that there was an invisible man in the sky and that if I just symbolically eat his flesh I will be forgiven for shoplifting Star Wars action figures when I was 9.

    • “You are forgiven!” (says the great booming voice)…

      Which figure? Luke, Vader? A rarer alien?

      Totally forgivable, in my opinion. Lucas is doing fine…

  4. I’m very surprised that you do not make any reference to the amazing Immanuel Velikovsky and his revolutionary book “Worlds in collision” (he was litterally crucified by the “scientific community” when published, which is a good sign). If you have not read it (which would really surprise me), please do, it is enlightening!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision

  5. It’s all about the brown dwarfs, baby…

    How can a star be 80?farenheit? Because it’s heated from the Outside….

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/23aug_coldeststars/

    “Discovered: Stars as Cool as the Human Body

    August 24, 2011: Scientists using data from NASA’s Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) have discovered six “Y dwarfs”– star-like bodies with temperatures as cool as the human body.

    This artist’s conception illustrates what a “Y dwarf” might look like. Y dwarfs are the coldest star-like bodies known, with temperatures that can be even cooler than the human body. [more]

    Astronomers hunted these dark orbs for more than a decade without success. When viewed with a visible-light telescope, they are nearly impossible to see. WISE’s infrared vision allowed the telescope to finally spot the faint glow of a half dozen Y dwarfs relatively close to our sun, within a distance of about 40 light-years.

    “WISE scanned the entire sky for these and other objects, and was able to spot their feeble light with its highly sensitive infrared vision,” says Jon Morse, Astrophysics Division director at NASA Headquarters in Washington.

    The Y’s are the coldest members of the brown dwarf family. Brown dwarfs are sometimes referred to as “failed” stars. They are too low in mass to fuse atoms at their cores and thus don’t burn with the fires that keep stars like our sun shining steadily for billions of years. Instead, these objects cool and fade with time, until what little light they do emit is at infrared wavelengths. The atmospheres of brown dwarfs are similar to those of gas giant planets like Jupiter, but they are easier to observe because they are alone in space, away from the blinding light of a parent star.

    So far, WISE data have revealed 100 new brown dwarfs. Of these, six are classified as cool Y’s. One of the Y dwarfs, called WISE 1828+2650, is the record holder for the coldest brown dwarf with an estimated atmospheric temperature cooler than room temperature, or less than 80 degrees Fahrenheit (25 degrees Celsius).:

    • To definitively confirm them, the WISE team used some of the most powerful telescopes and spectrometers on Earth to split apart the objects’ light and look for telltale molecular signatures of water, methane and possibly ammonia.

      Are water, methane and possibly ammonia…properties of plasma? Would their absence or presence contribute to the plasma-universe theory?

      Also, on the topic of binary-stars… Do you notice a similarity to growth in the plasma universe to cell division and biology? And would we be better off looking to biology to get a better understanding of how we might expect growth in the plasma-universe to function?

      Additionally, when I took an Astronomy course last Summer, we did an entire chapter about how the moon was created. The theory went that the moon came directly from the earth as though it were pulled off, or ejected. Recently I read an article that seemed to destroy that theory, again showing how scientists make these models, then rely on them, and then base new science off those models, only to find that their original theory was totally wrong. So you’d think all their later theories would be wrong to. But the point was that even scientists seemed to be suggesting that planets, or at least moons, came directly from other objects too, and not just nebulae. I think the more often we see mainstream science alluding to plasma-oriented universe explanations, the more credibility plasma will enjoy.

Leave a Reply

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