According to a recent press release, The European Space Agency’s orbiting telescope Herschel has observed “molecular gas gusting at high velocities” from galaxies that appear to be merging. In some instances, the gas is being driven to velocities exceeding 1000 kilometers per second. Traveling at that speed, the United States is about fives seconds across from coast to coast.
As the announcement goes on to state, “powerful, storm-like processes” are taking place. These storms are said to be initiated by the black holes within each galaxy as the two come together. Another theory is that supernova explosions take place that are sufficient to blow away almost the entire volume of gas in a galaxy. Star formation, with its assumed attendant high frequency radiation, creating the blasts of galactic energy is another.
Since the idea that electricity flows through the Universe is commonly met with resistance by today’s consensus, its influence and attributes are unseen. It has long been said that “seeing is believing.” However, it should not be surprising that “believing is seeing” appears to be more apt. When there is no inner experience, outer realities can often remain invisible.
From gamma rays down through X-rays and extreme ultraviolet, conventional theories have relied on gravity and acceleration for radiation to be produced in space. Compressing hydrogen gas and dust is supposed to create enough transfer of momentum that the gas reaches million degree temperatures. It is the high temperature of the gas that is supposed to make it glow so brightly.
For example, the CHANDRA X-ray Telescope found eruptions of charged material pouring out of the Crab Nebula, emitting X-rays as they go. In another announcement, astronomers reported that two giant stars in Eta Carinae were blowing off “intense winds.” The winds are so powerful that the collision of the wave fronts is thought to be generating X-rays where the shells intersect.
All of these effects are supposed to be due to kinetic shock, even though the researchers acknowledge that the observed “wind” is ionized particles. Despite that understanding, researchers persist in the use of “billiard ball physics”: as electrons bounce back and forth in the magnetic fields they accelerate until they impact low-frequency photons, imparting so much energy that they become X-rays.
From the Electric Universe perspective, those magnetic fields do accelerate electrons, but since the electrons spiral in the field, they emit synchrotron radiation. To the detectors observing stars, synchrotron radiation can be in the form of X-rays or gamma-rays.
Electric currents surge out along galactic spin axes, forming double layers that can sometimes be seen as radio or X-ray “lobes.” The currents spread out around the galactic circumference, flowing back to the core along the spiral arms. All the elements in a galactic circuit radiate energy. That energetic radiance shows that they are powered by larger circuits. Galaxies occur in strings, and the extent of the larger circuits may be traced by radio telescopes from their polarized radio “noise.” It seems apparent that we will never be able to observe them, since they are far too large and diffuse.
Plasma’s behavior is governed by those circuits. Double layers with large potential voltages between them often exist. The electric forces in double layer filaments can be much stronger than gravity. Those filaments can also have different temperatures or densities. Double layers broadcast radio waves over a wide range of frequencies. They can sort galactic gas and dust and then condense it. Most significant to the ESA bulletin, they can accelerate charged particles to cosmic ray energies.
This vision of the cosmos sees various components coupled to and driven by circuits at ever larger scales. Electrons and other charged particles accelerating through intense electric fields radiate “shouts” of energy in many bandwidths. The power of those currents can sweep up neutral gas and dust as they move through a galaxy.
Gravity is one phenomenon in physics which has been well observed but poorly understood. The Standard Model, which describes and explains most of what physics has learned so far has been unable to include gravity. To date the model includes a particle named graviton as a carrier for gravitational force. The particle graviton has never been seen or traced.
A quotation from the European organization for Nuclear Research in Cern summarizes the Standard Model:
“There are four fundamental forces at work in the Universe: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. They work over different ranges and have different strengths. Gravity is the weakest but it has an infinite range. The electromagnetic force also has infinite range but it is many times stronger than gravity. The weak and strong forces are effective only over a very short range and dominate only at the level of subatomic particles. Despite its name, the weak force is much stronger than gravity but it is indeed the weakest of the other three. The strong force is, as the name says, the strongest among all the four fundamental interactions. We know that three of the fundamental forces result from the exchange of force carrier particles, which belong to a broader group called ‘bosons’. Matter particles transfer discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons with each other. Each fundamental force has its own corresponding boson particle. The strong force is carried by the ‘gluon’, the electromagnetic force is carried by the ‘photon’, and the ‘W and Z bosons’ are responsible for the weak force. Although not yet found, the ‘graviton’ should be the corresponding force-carrying particle of gravity.
The Standard Model includes the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces and all their carrier particles, and explains extremely well how these forces act on all the matter particles. However, the most familiar force in our everyday lives, gravity, is not part of the Standard Model. In fact, fitting gravity comfortably into the framework has proved to be a difficult challenge. The quantum theory used to describe the micro world, and the general theory of relativity used to describe the macro world, are like two children who refuse to play nicely together. No one has managed to make the two mathematically compatible in the context of the Standard Model. But luckily for particle physics, when it comes to the minuscule scale of particles, the effect of gravity is so weak as to be negligible. Only when we have matter in bulk, such as in ourselves or in planets, does the effect of gravity dominate. So the Standard Model still works well despite its reluctant exclusion of one of the fundamental forces.”
End of Quote.
What I will be offering herein is a finer dissection of the forces described above. The result is an explanation of gravity and strong force as composite forces of many vectors of one single type of force which we could call the electrostatic force.
We are then left with only two types of forces: The electromagnetic force and the electrostatic force. The bosons named gravitons and gluons need no longer be regarded as particles but rather as historic names for composites of multiple electrostatic force vectors.
The following hypothesis offers an explanation for the mechanism of gravity.
The hypothesis presented herein claims that gravity is the result of composite electrostatic forces between electrical charges in particles and bodies. To understand the mechanism I am suggesting that we introduce one neutron into a brand new and otherwise empty universe. In this scenario the neutron is free from external influences. The neutron is at rest and externally neutral because the 2/3 e positively charged U-quark is flanked by the two 1/3 e negatively charged D-quarks, and there are no external influences.
Let us now introduce a second neutron into this new universe. According to computer simulations executed in Interactive Physics software as well as in Newton software, the six quarks in the two neutrons quickly align themselves into two separate lines where one negatively charged D-quark in one neutron takes aim at the positively charged U-quark in the center of the other neutron.
The Interactive Charge Posturing seen in the simulations and described above is a direct result of attracting constituents minimizing their distance while repelling constituents maximize theirs. The consequence is that the distance between attracting constituents become marginally shorter than that of repelling constituents resulting in a dominance of the attracting forces over repelling forces. In computer simulations the two neutrons invariably posture themselves as described and start accelerating toward each other. In case of a large distance between the neutrons compared to the size of the quarks, the net attracting force is very small. However, simulations show that after the rapid Interactive Posturing of the quarks in each neutron, the two neutrons invariably begin a slow acceleration toward each other.
A static, longhand mathematical treatment of the situation described above yields the same result showing that the attraction forces always dominate over the repulsion forces.
I am suggesting that the electrical charge interactions and charge posturing described above cause what we refer to as gravity.
In an attempt to quantity this situation I am offering the results of two mathematical calculations. The first one looks at gravity between two hydrogen atoms. My hypothesis suggests that the proton in one hydrogen atom will attract the electron in the second hydrogen atom and vice verse causing a minor shift in the center of effort of the orbits of the two electrons around their protons thereby transforming both hydrogen atoms into conditional dipoles. The question is now, how large would this shift have to be to correspond to the observed gravity between two hydrogen atoms?
The answer is: At a distance of 1 x 10^-12 meters between the two hydrogen atoms, the dipole distance of each hydrogen atom would be 3.672300 * 10^-31 meter, which is 6.939 * 10^-21 of the radius of the hydrogen atom, or 4.424 * 10^-18 of the radius of the proton. In other words the charge shift or dipole distance required is extremely small, even compared to the radius of the proton.
A second attempt to quantify this hypothesis calculates the visible or virtual charge that a conditional dipole translates into, looking at it from the outside. Comparing gravity observed between two known masses with force observed between two known charges yields that two 1 kg masses experience each other as a net and opposite charge of 8.6175^-11 Coulombs. If we apply this to the two hydrogen atoms, a virtual dipole charge equivalent to 9.0088 * 10^-19 of the charge of one electron suffices to produce gravity. In other words, two bodies have to show each other very little dipolarity, to produce gravity.
Electrical charges of the constituents inside particles, nuclei and atoms are very large, and the forces between them are very strong.
The thought that these charges are totally insensitive to electrical charges in their surroundings is an assumption which no longer serves us. I believe that a closer look at the interaction between bodies containing electrical charges will confirm interactive charge influences, interactive charge posturing and electrostatic dipole attraction resulting in gravity.
Links to Neutron Gravity simulations:
Due to the uncertainties about the exact arrangement and degrees of freedom of the quarks in a neutron I have included three different cases. All three cases produce similar Charge Posturing and the same Electric Gravity result. The final simulation shows Charge Posturing and Electric Gravity between two neutrons in 3D.
2D Charge Posturing and Gravity between 2 neutrons with trapped quarks:
2D Charge Posturing and Gravity between 2 neutrons with coupled D-quarks:
2D Charge Posturing and Gravity between 2 neutrons with free quarks:
3D Charge Posturing and ES Gravity between 2 neutrons:
Links to Hydrogen Gravity simulations
2D Charge Posturing, Dipole formation and Gravity between 2 simulated hydrogen atoms:
2D Charge Posturing, Dipole formation and Gravity between 2 complete hydrogen atoms:
2D Charge Posturing, Dipole formation and Gravity between 2 hydrogen atoms with free quarks:
The big red spheres in the simulation below represent the electron shells, or the diameter, at which the hydrogen electrons orbit around the hydrogen proton nuclei. At the center of each resides one +e positively charged proton. The small green spheres around each hydrogen nucleus represent the indeterminable location of one electron. All the green spheres around each hydrogen proton together represent the probabilistic location of one -e negatively charged electron. The simulation demonstrates the spontaneous but invisible dipole formation of each hydrogen atom leading to attraction, which we know as gravity, between the two hydrogen atoms.
3D Charge Posturing, Dipole formation and ES Gravity between 2 hydrogen atoms.
Strong Force between two protons
In today’s Standard Model, Strong Force is considered one of the four fundamental forces in the universe. Strong Force is described as the strongest of the four forces and as having the shortest reach.
The composite dipole hypothesis described below suggests that Strong Force is the result of a multitude of dipole force vectors. These force vectors are both attracting and repelling. The fact that these different dipole forces are based on different dipole distances creates a complex resultant which is highly dependant on the distance between the particles.
Let us start with two free protons placed in the vicinity of each other. Looking closer at the protons we know that they each consist of a group of three quarks. There is one external ES force vector between each quark in one proton and each quark in the other proton, for a total of nine external ES force vectors.
Now let us force these protons closer together. So close that the cheeks of the protons are no further apart than the quarks in one of the protons. At least one of the quarks in proton 1 is now very close to one of the quarks in proton 2. If these close-up quarks are of the same charge it is easy to see that the composite force is likely to be repulsing. Because even if the remaining and more distant quark charges attract each other they are disadvantaged by their longer separation distance.
However if these nearby charges happen to be attracting each other while the more distant charges repel each other it would appear that the situation could turn out differently.
Simulations made with two different kinds of physics software both show the following:
1. Two protons placed closely together will repel each other most of the time.
2. Two protons shot at each other will bounce off and repel each other most of the time.
3. However, it is occasionally possible to shoot two protons at each other with the right speed and quark positions so that they latch on to each other, fuse and stay together, held in place by Strong Force. See simulation links below.
Two protons affect each other with a total of nine ES force vectors. Five of these are repelling and four are attracting. At most distances between the protons these vectors add up to a resultant which is an overwhelmingly repelling force.
However, once two protons come close enough to each other, with the right quark postures, they fuse and latch together with Strong Force.
Strong Force is a conditional resultant force made up of nine force vectors. Strong Force depends on very close distances between attracting constituents to remain positive.
If we could grab two fused protons and start pulling them apart we would find that as we increase the gap between the attracting quarks the Strong Force weakens very quickly. Very soon we would reach the mathematical crossover point where the resultant of the nine ES force vectors becomes zero and where the two protons loose their grip on each other. This is where Strong Force goes to zero, changes its name and transforms into a much weaker, nine component repelling force, which we know as repulsion between similarly charged objects.
Links to Strong Force simulations:
2D Repulsion between 2 protons
2D Collision between 2 protons
2D Special collision between 2 protons producing Fusion and Strong Force
Please note the very similar initial conditions in the two simulations below;
In the first simulation the two protons are placed just outside the reach of the Strong Force resulting in repulsion between the protons.
In the second simulation the protons are placed just inside the reach of the Strong Force resulting in fusion of the two protons.
3D Charge Posturing and ES repulsion between 2 protons
3D Charge Posturing and ES Strong Force between 2 protons
Binding Energy, ES Strong Force and Strong Force Reach
The above proton simulations suggest a specific quark posture between two fused protons. The same posturing is applied to the protons and quarks shown below in an attempt to quantify ES Strong Force and Strong Force Reach:
The Effective Quark Radius used above expresses the inverse degree of freedom, or posturing space, that the quarks have within the protons.
Please note that this value has been selected to produce a binding energy that matches known proton binding energy. This is done to show that ES attraction/repulsion and subsequent Charge Posturing is theoretically sufficient to cause the mechanism that we call strong force between two protons. It is also done to arrive at an Effective Quark Radius that can be used to test the credibility of this hypothesis in coming examples and calculations.
Strong force in Deuterium
The atom nucleus of Deuterium consists of one proton and one neutron. As compared to the case of two protons, Deuterium forms readily, is relatively stable and possesses a high binding energy. See link to posturing simulation below:
3D Charge Posturing and ES Strong Force between 1 proton and 1 neutron forming Deuterium;
The above simulations suggest a specific quark posture between the fused proton and neutron. The posturing is symmetrical and three dimensional. The same posturing is applied to the protons and quarks shown below in two views. Three dimensional design software was used to reconstruct the nucleus of Deuterium in accordance with the simulation results above to establish an accurate nucleus geometry and the 3D quark distances seen below:
Using the effective quark radius calculated in the case of strong force between two protons we can now test our ES Strong Force hypothesis by calculating the theoretical binding energy in Deuterium and compare it to the known binding energy:
Note that the ES strong force, or binding force in Deuterium never goes to zero why the integration of the binding energy theoretically can go on for ever. In this case the energy integration is stopped at a distance between proton and neutron where the ES strong force falls below 1/1000 of the contact strong force.
Also note that the theoretically calculated ES Strong Force produces a binding energy which is identical to the known binding energy. This is a remarkable result and I interpret it as strong support for the fact that what we call strong force is caused by the complex composite of electro static forces between electrically charged nuclei constituents shown above.
The quark family
Anatomy of the hadrons
To continue the analysis and quantification of ES Strong Force and ES Binding Energy for larger nuclei we first have to make a minor detour. The presently most popular models and depictions of the proton and the neutron rely on several flavors, or charges, of quarks as well as on a color charge to explain the forces between quarks of similar flavor. The simplification proposed below accounts for the forces inside and between protons and neutrons in a simpler way and facilitates calculating ES Binding Energy for larger nuclei in agreement with known values.
The following offers a quick look at the quark family together with more revealing models of the proton and the neutron. These more detailed models of the proton and the neutron more accurately tracks their electrical constituents. This is important in mapping ES relationships within and between protons and neutrons and helps solving some of the mysteries remaining in the Standard Model.
Many types of extremely short lived quarks have been observed in particle collision experiments. The following focuses on the two primary types of stable quarks that make up protons and neutrons, namely the Up Quark and the Down Quark.
The smallest, lightest and most basic of the quarks is the Up Quark with a charge of +2/3e.
The second most stable and basic of the quarks is the Down Quark with a charge of -1/3. A down quark consists of one up quark and one electron plus their binding energy. The difference in charge betwen the two is consequently that of the electron, or -1e.
The proton is today described as consisting of two +2/3e up quarks and one -1/3e down quark, The neutron is described as consisting of one +2/3 up quark and two -1/3e down quarks.
In the 2D and 3D computer simulations that I have performed to analyze the nature of Gravity and Strong Force the above way of looking at quarks as whole, positively or negatively charged quarks does not fully explain the interaction between quarks or between hadrons. It supports the ES attraction observed between dissimilarly charged quarks, but it does not support or explain the adhesion between two similarly charged quarks observed in the triangular geometry of protons and neutrons. The present concept of whole, negative and positive quarks would give both the proton and the neutron a straight, inline geometric shape rather than the triangular form observed. The present vision also fails to support accurate quantification of binding energies in larger nuclei.
As a refinement to the Standard Model I am suggesting that the base for the quark family is the Naked Quark that we know as an up quark. It is also suggested that all quarks are made up of a naked quark accompanied by some form of negatively charged companion. The naked quark is a unit of mass with a void of negative electrical charge. Compared to the average ES Earth Charge a naked quark lacks 2/3 of an elementary –e charge. We therefore say that it has a +2/3e positive charge.
As a consequence of the naked quark being deficient in negative charge it attracts constituents with a negative charge. The naked quark can be seen temporarily or permanently disguised in different forms of negatively charged coverings giving rise to the idea of different flavors and color charges of quarks. The electron, our primary carrier of negative charge, is often seen accompanying a naked quark. The pair appears like a -1/3e negatively charged quark, sometimes called a Down Quark. To be able to more accurately map and calculate the ES relationships between quarks and hadrons the down quark will in the following be treated as a Naked Quark accompanied by an Electron.
Proposed anatomy of protons and neutrons
The proposed quark anatomies of the proton and the neutron are therefore the same and consist of three +2/3e Naked Quarks. The three naked quarks in the proton are held together by one electron residing at the hub of the triangle of the three quarks. The three naked quarks plus one electron give the proton an overall charge of +1e. However, the proton has three externally exposed constituents with a charge of +2/3 and one with a charge of -1e. This polarized constitution of hadrons play a key role in ES Dipole formation and subsequent ES Gravity discussed earlier. This same polarization and potential ES attachment points also play a key role in producing and explaining ES Strong Force and in quantifying ES Binding Energy.
See proposed 3D model of the Proton in the simulation below:
The three naked quarks in the neutron are held together by two electrons. The electrons reside at the hub of the triangle of the three quarks, one on each side of the hub. The three naked quarks plus two electrons give the neutron an overall charge of 0. However, the neutron has three externally exposed constituents with a charge of +2/3e and two with a charge of -1e. These potential ES attachment points play a key role in producing and explaining ES Strong Force and in quantifying ES Binding Energy.
See proposed 3D model of the Neutron in the simulation below:
Gravity, Strong Force, Deuterium and Tritium revisited
The 3D simulations shown below use the proton and neutron models proposed above.
These simulations show behaviors very similar to those shown earlier using the older models of positively and negatively charged quarks. The difference is that the older models fail to support quantification of known binding energies in larger nuclei, whereas the new models support ES Gravity and ES Strong Force as well as calculation of ES binding energies in larger nuclei.
Proton Strong Force:
Please note the initial position in this simulation resulting in ES attraction and ES strong force compared to the previous simulation where the only slightly different initial position results in ES repulsion.
Formation of Deuterium:
Formation of Tritium:
The naked quarks in the hadrons are all identical but are here shown in different colors to make it easier to identify the original proton and neutron geometries after fusion.
A free neutron, consisting of a Three Leaf Naked Quark Clover and two Electrons, is known not to be very stable. Simulations suggest that the degree of stability has to do with the size of Stationary Electrons in relation to the Quark Clover. Spontaneous decay of a neutron into a proton is the result of the marginal stability of the two electrons in the neutron compared to the substantially greater stability of one electron in a proton. It appears that a well directed collision between a passing electron and a neutron is sufficient to reduce the neutron into a proton.
At the same time, a well directed high energy collision between an electron and a proton is known to be able to create a Temporary Neutron.
Electron collides with a Neutron to produce a Proton and two Free Electrons:
High energy Electron collides with a Proton to produce a Temporary Neutron:
Please keep in mind that realistically simulating high speed collisions of subatomic particles would require knowing a lot more about the particles than what we know today. The ES simulations above are attempts to test and illustrate ideas about slow, subatomic electrostatic relationships. However, the same models are greatly insufficient to represent any true dynamic behavior of high speed subatomic particle collisions. The last two simulations above should therefore be regarded only as illustrations of events that have been observed and documented elsewhere.
Coming soon: More analysis of Charge Posturing, Dipole Formation, ES Gravity, ES Strong Force and ES Binding Energies in our Electric Universe.
Considering the variety of Saturn’s moons, it would be difficult to identify them as members of the same family. They vary in size, chemical composition, temperature, and appearance. However, superficial appearances are often misleading when it comes to overall qualities or characteristics. Powerful electromagnetic connections with their giant parent planet indicate they share common traits.
A recent press release states that a gravity map of Titan, created by monitoring changes in the Cassini orbiter’s speed as it flew by the giant moon between February 2006 and July 2008, shows that its interior is a mixture of rock and ice with no layering. The orbital variations were measured by the Earth-based Deep Space Network as Titan’s gravity “pushed and pulled” Cassini in its flight path. Analyzing those gravitational tics provides data for computer models of Titan’s core.
Since the variations in gravity suggest a variation in density, and that variation is so subtle, there are no “mascons” of rock distributed through Titan’s body as there are inside Earth’s Moon. Instead, the rocks and ice are thought to be compacted into a relatively homogeneous interior structure.
As written in previous Picture of the Day articles, many of Titan’s anomalies can be explained if a youthful aspect is considered. Titan might be only a few thousand years old and not the billions of years required by conventional astrophysics. If that is the case, then the presence of its dense atmosphere, lacking a mechanism for replenishment, can be attributed to that youth. Since Titan is relatively young, its atmosphere is not in equilibrium. It is losing methane at a measurable rate. That atmospheric loss requires methane production somewhere on or in the moon’s body if it is ancient.
The canyons and “rilles” on Titan’s surface are thought to be “drainage channels” from the methane rains that must periodically fall to feed the “rivers,” although no precipitation was detected. However, in an Electric Universe the canyons are blast marks etched into Titan’s surface from tremendous lightning discharges. They point to the moon’s savage electrical birth. Their dendritic forms are called Lichtenberg figures, which look like some river systems on Earth.
That recent electrical birth, possibly resulting from a double layer overload within Saturn, also explains Titan’s homogeneous core. Electric Universe theory proposes that the progeny of stars or planets are not all born at the same time as the parent. They are born hierarchically at intervals, and typically from within the parent. They are ejected.
If Titan was ejected from Saturn in a paroxysm, then its atmosphere and surface features are the results of that catastrophic event. Its interior could be electrically charged, either from a continuous circuit connection with Saturn or because it retains a remanent discharging current flow. Possibly both. The small effects on Cassini could be electrical in nature.
Are concepts of a “slushy core” or a “rocky interior” outdated premises? Do the deep places of planets and moons possess double layers? If so, the “gravitational effects” on Cassini could indicate that Titan is exerting an electric force on the spacecraft.
For the first time, Tufts University biologists have reported that bioelectrical signals are necessary for normal head and facial formation in an organism and have captured that process in a time-lapse video that reveals never-before-seen patterns of visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear in an embryonic tadpole.
De elektriciteit was aanwezig door dat zoet en zout water stromen elkaar kruisten en zo de eencellige diertjes activeerden
Laast bewerkt: 1 jaar, 6 maanden geleden Door combi.
Uranus recently erupted with a new bright region in its lower latitudes. Could electrical effects be responsible?
The planet Uranus revolves around the Sun at a mean orbital radius of 2,870,990,000 kilometers, 19 times as far as the Earth. Of course, its most exotic attribute is its inclination to the plane of the ecliptic: 98 degrees past vertical. Astrophysicists have always found the configuration difficult to explain, since their models of Solar System formation demand a distribution of angular momentum from the “primordial nebular cloud” that precludes a planet lying on its side. Their only recourse is to suggest that something hit the giant planet with enough energy to tip it over.
The average temperature on Uranus is -224 Celsius, giving it the distinction of being the coldest planet in the Solar System—colder than Neptune, although Neptune is half again the distance from the Sun. Why Uranus is so cold remains a mystery to planetary scientists.
Uranus possesses a magnetic field, but unlike its two large siblings, Jupiter and Saturn, whose magnetic poles are mostly aligned with their rotational axes, the field is slanted from Uranus’s rotational axis by 60 degrees. This fact also presents something of a conundrum for conventional cosmogony.
Why Uranus (and Neptune) have relatively weak magnetic fields is not easily explained. Standard theory expects a conducting core, probably composed of metallic hydrogen, to act as a dynamo to generate the field. An off-center core would be difficult to explain. However, in an Electric Universe model, an internal dynamo is not necessary. A probable scenario is that rotation of charged particles in the giant planet’s plasma gives rise to the field: spinning, electrically charged body will induce a magnetic field.
Uranus is 51120 kilometers in diameter, rotating in approximately 18 hours, so the rotational dynamics of its electrically charged atmosphere produces a current sheet between it and Miranda, one of its small moons. The Uranian magnetosphere encompasses its entire family of moons and its ring system, as well.
According to a recent press release, a large bright region has appeared near the lower latitudes. Images taken in near infrared wavelengths by the Gemini North Telescope reveal what scientists are calling an “anvil cloud of methane” rising up from the depths into the sunshine. Reflections from methane ice crystals are supposed to be causing the bright patch.
Over the years, the Hubble Space Telescope has observed many bright spots on Uranus. They appear similar to the bright spots seen in Jupiter’s southern latitudes, as well as in its polar aurorae. The four Galilean moons all leave their marks in Jupiter’s aurora, so the same thing could be happening on Uranus.
On Saturn, a “great white spot” periodically appears in its southern latitudes. As Electric Universe advocate Wal Thornhill wrote: “Saturn occasionally ‘burps’, creating a great white spot 3 times the size of the Earth. It is inexplicable on standard models. However, it is the kind of thing to be expected following an exceptionally powerful lightning discharge deep into Saturn’s atmosphere. The discharge forms a vertical jet of matter from the depths that spouts into the upper atmosphere.”
Perhaps this explanation suits the observations on Uranus. Instead of convection-powered thunderheads of cold methane ice, the spots are jets from intense plasma discharges.
Ev Cochrane’s recent book, On Fossil Gods and Forgotten Worlds, again presents the challenge to explain an undeniable intelligibility in a large and coherent body of data.
Petroglyphs, myths, and rituals around the world are composed of the same motifs: the ladder to heaven, the great star, and the thunderbolt—to name only three. The motifs are linked within each ancient society’s oeuvre and therefore are implicitly defined: the thunderbolt springs from the eye of the hero as he descends the ladder from heaven. Furthermore, the linkages are the same around the world.
This is not a new insight. Many mythologists have remarked on the one story told around the world. The difficulty lies in explaining that pattern of recurrence. There would seem to be only three possibilities.
One Story: Some physical event with a global occurrence inspired the anthropomorphic narrative. If the story were about sunrises and thunderstorms, there would be no difficulty. However, the story is about planetary gods hurling hammers and fiery wheels from a celestial column that is fixed along the axis of heaven. If those planetary gods are the same planets that we see today, the story violates the Law of Gravity and is impossible.
One Storyteller: This was the first story told by the handful of first humans as they huddled around the first campfire in Africa. Their descendants took it with them as they spread around the world. They changed the names of the characters as they invented different languages, but they kept the motifs and plots and even the specific details of the images and interrelationships.
Thus, a primitive tribe in the Amazon today tells of the same ladder to heaven as the ancient Babylonians told of because their ancestors carried it unchanged across the Bering land bridge during the Ice Age. This explanation trades impossibility for incredibility.
One Storytelling: The human brain is hardwired to generate this myth in all its details. Then why did it generate those myths and glyphs only during the Age of Mythmaking, not before, not now? Today’s comparable creation myth, the Big Bang, retains the explosive initial event but puts it far in the past beyond human witnessing and devotes most of the narrative to slowly changing uniformity.
For ancient people as for modern, their myths are the explanatory foundation for their world and their behavior in it. How can people today be so smart if their ancestors were so stupid? How could the ancestors have survived? Why would not natural selection “deselect” them? This explanation suffers from the same problem as the first: If the world then was the same as now, the story is impossible.
The key is the conditional: if. Already the world today is not the same as it was just a few years ago. The growing awareness of plasma behavior in the laboratory and in space correlates with ancient art and artifacts, and it undermines Presently Accepted Theories with their P.A.T. answers.
The technologically enhanced vision of space telescopes and trans-optical detectors “see” polar configurations and thunderbolts throughout space. Herbig-Haro stars and active galaxies sport rope- and snakelike columns of plasma along their spin axes, often with bright knots of plasma entwined along them. In an Electric Universe, these structures are the “wiring harnesses” that power the star or galaxy below them pushed into visibility by a surge in the current.
Gravity cannot explain such structures. Astronomers have invented all manner of ad hoc excuses, magnetic artifices, and arbitrary mathematics to justify ignoring the plain sense of the observations. Similarly, mythologists have ignored the plain sense of myths and petroglyphs. The result has been the denial of a past that imbues the present.
An electric view of the world unifies past and present. It explains why our ancestors were not crazy and why modern humans act crazy. It explains why thunderbolts of the gods are matched with thunderbolts of the galaxies. Gravity whimpers into oblivion; electricity floods the universe of explanation with the flip of a cognitive switch.
Dare to flip the switch: the universe will never again look the same.
Nasa would stop being surprised if they just realized that electricity is the driving force in the universe not gravity. The shape that surprises them is seen from the galactic level down to the laboratory level and is an unmistakable feature of Birkland currents.
In previous Picture of the Day articles, the presence of frozen water on the Moon was considered to be a theoretical possibility, but was not given much credence. Recent missions designed to explore the question more thoroughly have returned results that seem to show water in greater amounts than predicted by planetary scientists.
Michael Wargo, chief lunar scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington, wrote: “NASA has convincingly confirmed the presence of water ice and characterized its patchy distribution in permanently shadowed regions of the moon.”
The Moon has long thought to have been created when a planet the size of Mars hit Earth billions of years ago. It was once a blob of molten magma that was torn out and hurled into orbit. Since it was born in an event that generated immense heat, there should be no water on or inside the Moon: it should have all boiled away.
Samples brought back by the various Apollo missions were predominantly dry. They contained metallic iron, as well, something that would not exist if there were any appreciable moisture in the samples. On January 25, 1994, NASA’s Deep Space Program Science Experiment satellite (Clementine) data indicated that the south pole of the Moon contained pockets of water ice shielded from the Sun by shadows cast from the walls of deep craters.
The recent Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) found almost pure ice crystals within craters that are permanently shaded. LCROSS, along with one of its rocket stages, struck Cabeus crater on October 9, 2009. When the explosive cloud rose up to 16 kilometers above the lunar surface, both LCROSS and LRO observed the debris with a variety of sensors. Spectrographic analysis showed water ice in the vapor plume.
Water is built from two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. Hydrogen arrives on the Moon by way of the solar wind, with its one electron stripped, traveling along as a proton. If a hydrogen atom is removed from water, it becomes a hydroxyl molecule. Water and hydroxyl can bind to the lunar surface through electrical forces. Solar wind protons can form hydrogen atoms when they pick up loose electrons from the Moon’s charged surface, as well. The hydrogen might then combine with ionized oxygen atoms in the regolith to form water.
Five separate missions have reported the discovery of either water or hydroxyl on the Moon: Chandrayaan-1, Cassini, as it flew by on its way to Saturn, EPOXI, the Lunar Prospector, and LCROSS.
Chandrayaan-1 and EPOXI found that there was water or hydroxyl over the Moon’s entire surface during a portion of each day. Near the poles and in permanently shadowed craters the signal was stronger.
Water and other volatiles are most likely on the Moon because it and the Earth were once part of the same grouping of planets that wandered into the realm of the Sun long ago. We most likely shared a similar birth, with similar chemical gifts. From an Electric Universe perspective, the sparse presence of water on the Moon is not surprising. The catastrophic nature of the Moon’s experiences over time have removed most of what was once there, leaving only a pale shadow behind.
The Solar System’s gas giant planets and their accompanying moons suggest that our own Moon might once have been similar: theirs are largely covered in ice. Perhaps what has been seen in the deep polar craters on the Moon are all that remains.
According to a recent press release, the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope has detected several unidentified sources of intense gamma-ray emissions that are not seen in any other frequencies. NASA launched the telescope (formerly known as GLAST) on June 11, 2008. Its primary mission is observing high frequency electromagnetic waves in space, including gamma-rays. Since gamma-rays are unable to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere, Fermi was placed in high orbit.
Gamma-rays are theoretical “electromagnetic particles” called photons. Due to the supposed “duality” of matter, they exist as both waves and particles, and they are “massless,” as astrophysicists define mass. However, since they travel at enormous velocity (up to 2.993 x 10^10 centimeters per second), so-called “relativistic effects” come into play. As consensus theories state, the velocity imparts significant momentum to the photons, enough for them to have an impact on normal matter. Thus, gamma-rays are “ionizing radiation,” since they are capable of knocking electrons out of an atom.
Of the three types of natural radioactivity, gamma rays are the most energetic, with values 10^15 times greater than visible light. They also have short wavelengths, less than 0.1 nanometers, in some instances.
One of Fermi’s recent discoveries concerns the Crab Nebula. For many years, astronomers thought that the Crab Nebula was well known, with a steady X-ray glow. Fermi found that it is emitting gamma-ray bursts so strong that they are reconsidering their theories. “Super flares” of gamma radiation are blasting out from the nebula, their intensity rapidly rising and falling.
Alice Harding at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland reported: “These superflares are the most intense outbursts we’ve seen to date, and they are all extremely puzzling events. We think they are caused by sudden rearrangements of the magnetic field not far from the neutron star, but exactly where that’s happening remains a mystery.”
When charged particles are accelerated in an electric field, they emit synchrotron radiation that often takes the form of X-rays and gamma-rays. Laboratory experiments have confirmed that that is the “easiest” way to create them. They are not created in gravity fields. No so-called “pulsars,” “neutron stars,” or near-infinite masses compressed into infinitesimal volumes are necessary. There are far more mundane factors that should be considered when analyzing data from space before resorting to super-dense objects and other exotic fictions.
As has been noted in the past, Hannes Alfvén thought that the “exploding double layer” should be considered a new class of celestial object. It is double layers in space plasmas that form most of the unusual structures we see. Compression zones (z-pinches) in plasma filaments create plasmoids that evolve into stars and galaxies. Electricity is responsible for the birth of stars, and when the current density gets too high the double layers in the circuit catastrophically release their excess energy and appear as gamma-ray bursts, X-rays or flares of ultraviolet light.
“From what has been said it is obvious that astrophysics runs the risk of getting too speculative, unless it tries very hard to keep contact with laboratory physics. Indeed it is essential to stress that astrophysics is essentially an application to cosmic phenomena of the laws of nature found in the laboratory. From this follows that a particular field of astrophysics is not ripe for a scientific approach before experimental physics has reached a certain state of development.” Hannes Alfvén
A Spray of Plasma
Posted on November 27, 2011 by Stephen Smith
Nebula Henize 3-1475, the "Garden Sprinkler" Nebula. Credit: J. Borkowski, (North Carolina State University, United States), J. Harrington, (University of Maryland, United States), J. Blondin (North Carolina State University, United States), M. Bobrowsky (Challenger Center for Space Science, United States), M. Meixner (Space Telescope Science Institute, United States), and C. Skinner (Space Telescope Science Institute, United States).
Consensus opinions state that a star in the latter stages of its life will undergo violent upheavals as its supply of hydrogen fuel diminishes and the “ash” of heavier elements accumulates in its core.
Before stars reach the final white dwarf stage in their evolution, it is thought that disequilibrium caused by the fusion of heavier nuclei causes them to eject vast quantities of matter—they “slough off” their outer layers. It is thought that the expanding cloud of dust and gas is illuminated by the senescent star at its center, and it is that reflected light that astronomers detect.
Nebulae come in all shapes and sizes: round, elliptical, interlocking rings, or nested cylinders, sometimes with long tendrils and symmetrical hourglass shapes, such as in the image of Henize 3-1475 at the top of the page. According to conventional theories, such features are the result of shock waves, or stellar winds blowing off the parent star crashing into the slower material ahead of them.
In the case of the Garden Sprinkler Nebula, the unmistakable appearance of twisting Birkeland current filaments is clearly visible bisecting the center of the image. The overall configuration is an hourglass, with braided filaments, and the shapes within the nebula correspond to the filaments, helices, and pillars that electrical discharge in plasmas creates.
In the laboratory, plasma forms cells separated by thin walls of opposite charge called double layers. Could separation of charges also take place in nebulae? That question might require centuries to answer, since the only way to detect a double layer in space is by flying a probe through one. However, everywhere in our own Solar System cellular structures separated by double layers abound: the Sun’s heliosphere, comet tails, and magnetospheres are all examples of charge separation in plasma.
ESO astronomers have a different viewpoint: ‘To produce a jet, you require some sort of nozzle mechanism. So far, these theoretical “nozzles” remain hidden by dust that obscures our view of the centers of planetary nebulae’.
Electric discharges through plasma clouds form double layers along the current axis. Positive charge builds up on one side and negative charge on the other side of this “sheath.” An electric field develops between the sides, and if enough current is applied the sheath glows, otherwise it is invisible. Electric currents flow within and across the sheaths.
Electric sheaths that are normally invisible are “pumped” with additional energy from Birkeland currents in which they are immersed. Electromagnetic forces draw matter from the surrounding space into filaments. The electrical power pushes them into “glow mode.”
Prevailing astronomical theories do not provide a mechanism that can form nebular clouds and their energetic emissions. They do not know how stars “eject” their outer layers or how lobes of matter speed from their polar axes. The reason for that lack of understanding is that nebulae are not composed of inert gas, cold or hot, but of plasma.
According to Electric Universe theory, bipolar formations are not puzzling or surprising. Rather, they are readily explicable and expected. From nebula to galaxy, hourglass configurations are one signature of electric currents flowing through the aforementioned plasma.
According to a recent press release, two black holes with masses exceeding “9 billion times the mass of the Sun” have been detected. The supposed “event horizon” in NGC 3842 is said to be “seven times larger than Pluto’s orbit.”
Black holes are mathematical constructs based on an improper interpretation of some equations. Those formulae reify the existence of objects that are theorized to wrench space itself into a twisted pretzel, so that various calculations about velocity and mass yield impossible results. Inside the event horizon of a black hole, matter is said to occupy no volume, yet it retains a gravitational field so intense that not even light can escape, while time is said to slow to a crawl. Black holes are “black” because they cannot be seen.
Previous Picture of the Day articles determined that the terminology invented by astrophysicists relies on speculations derived from the aforementioned loose interpretations. Concepts of “space/time,” “multi-verses,” “singularities,” and other non-quantifiable ideas verge on the ironic, rather than on a realistic investigation into the nature of the Universe.
Black holes are thought to form when stars that are at least five times the Sun’s mass reach the end of their lives, after having exhausted their hydrogen fuel. As the standard model of stellar evolution speculates, those stars accumulate heavier atomic nuclei in their core fusion reactors, slowing the reaction, and making it impossible for them to push their outer surfaces away from their centers with radiative pressure. Gravity overcomes fusion, so the star’s gaseous envelope suddenly collapses, rebounding off the core in what astronomers call a “supernova explosion.”
Gravity is no longer hindered by a radiating core, so the core is is supposed to shrink under that force. As a result, the star disappears from normal space, compressing itself into a near infinitely dense mass with no geometry. A ghost of the star’s presence remains as an irresistible gravitational source that can continue to attract material into its hypothetical maw. That is how black holes are thought to grow.
There is no experimental evidence indicating matter can be compressed to almost infinite density. It is not clear to the consensus scientific community how stars form supernovae, because supernovae do not form spherical shells when they explode; they form glowing bipolar plasma formations like an hourglass. Also, no one knows precisely how a black hole gathers matter into an “accretion disk” and grows to billions of solar masses.
As we have noted in the past, Hannes Alfvén identified the “exploding double layer” as a new class of celestial object. It is double layers in space plasmas that form most of the unusual structures we see. Stellar explosions, jets, rings, and glowing clouds are all examples of electricity flowing through dusty plasma confined within Birkeland currents that stretch across the light years.
Electromagnetic compression zones (z-pinches) in plasma filaments form plasmoids that eventually evolve into stars and galaxies. Electricity is responsible for the birth of stars, and when the current density gets too high double layers in the circuit may catastrophically break the circuit and release the electromagnetic energy stored in the local galactic circuit. The result is the stupendous outburst of a supernova.
In the electric star hypothesis, no concentrated gravity from hypothetical super-compacted objects and “singularities” is necessary. Classical “laws” of electromagnetism are more than able to create the phenomena we see, without recourse to the supernatural physics of supermassive black holes. Expulsion disks are common in such energetic systems rather than “accretion disks.”
Instead of black holes, galaxies possess plasmoids as their driving engines. Gamma ray (and X-ray) observations of our own galactic core reveal a plasma torus there. High frequency radiation from the plasmoid is similar to that from electrically excited stars. Prodigious electromagnetic energy from the galaxy is stored in the matter trapped in the compact plasmoid. The plasmoid therefore exhibits immense mass, derived from the well-known E = mc2 equivalence. So it is the gravity of the plasmoid that accelerates stars to the high speeds mistakenly attributed to an imaginary and unphysical black hole.
Stephen Smith and Wal Thornhill
In a recent Picture of the Day, the so-called “bubbles” of magnetism supposedly found by the Voyager spacecraft at the boundary where the Sun’s heliosphere meets the ISM (interstellar medium) were explained as Langmuir sheaths, or electrically charged double layers in plasma. Since the bubbles are thought to be elongated, it was suggested that the electron flux variations detected by the twin Voyagers probably indicate filaments of electricity called Birkeland currents.
Similar electromagnetic structures are seen around Earth, on Venus, on the various gas giant planets, and within and surrounding galaxies. All of these phenomena share a common characteristic: they are all manifestations of electricity flowing through plasma.
Plasma experiments in the laboratory correspond to plasma formations in space because of the scalability factor: under similar conditions, plasma discharges produce the same formations independent of size, whether in the laboratory or on a planetary, stellar, or galactic level. Duration is proportional to size, however. An electric spark that lasts for microseconds in the laboratory might last for years at the stellar scale, or for millions of years at the galactic scale.
Recent observations of Enceladus by the Cassini spacecraft in orbit around Saturn reveal that its electrically charged plumes are also bubbly with magnetic fields. Saturn’s “magnetic bubble” is its magnetosphere, inside of which Enceladus orbits. The interactions with Saturn are because the moon acts like a generator, its conducting plasma moving through Saturn’s magnetic field induces current flow.
An ultraviolet “footprint” of the electric circuit between them was seen in Saturn’s auroral oval during Cassini’s August 11, 2008 flyby. The onboard plasma sensors found ion and electron beams propagating from Saturn’s northern hemisphere. Their variability was puzzling to NASA scientists until time-variable emissions from Enceladus’ south polar vents were found to correspond with the auroral footprint’s brightness variations.
Consensus viewpoints assume that the Universe is electrically neutral, so evidence confirming electrically active plasma is said to be caused by localized phenomena no matter how improbable. Tidal “kneading,” “cryo-volcanoes,” and “geysers” erupting from underground chambers of liquid water are said to cause the activity seen on Enceladus, while electricity is ignored.
Planetary scientists persist in misinterpreting the “tiger stripes” on Enceladus as “vents,” channeling water to the surface. The vents are really incisions on the moon caused by traveling electric arcs. They are analogous to the v-shaped trenches seen on Jupiter’s moon Europa. They are often found in parallel and they cut across other channels. Such characteristics contradict the idea that they are a series of fractures.
It appears that Enceladus was gouged and torn, rather than cracked and broken. A giant auger seems to have cut across the surface, disregarding the prior topography: a sure sign that an electric arc was the active agent. The tiger stripes show parallelism not because they are open cracks but because filamentary electric currents flowing across a surface tend to align and follow the ambient magnetic field direction.
Electric Universe advocates propose that the rilles and hot pole are heated by electromagnetic induction, while the water vapor is electrically “machined” from them. A similar process occurs at the north pole of Enceladus, where the electric current returns to Saturn’s plasma sheath.
A recent press release explains: “Like wine in a glass, vast clouds of hot gas are sloshing back and forth….” The blue image is assembled electronically from x-ray data and superimposed on the gold image from optical data. Astrophysicists interpret the images in the light of preconceived ideas about gravity and gas. They see a small cluster of galaxies that “smashed into” a larger one, “sloshing” the gas in it. Off-center tidal forces pulled the gas first one way and then another, making it spiral around in the gravity well.
By photoshopping the x-ray data into a blue swash on the computer screen, the image looks a lot like what our eyes interpret as visual light. If it were visual light but with the energy bumped up to the x-ray level, the gas emitting it would need to have a temperature of 30 million degrees. “Gas” at that temperature should be fully ionized.
However, the “preconceptual” light in which it is interpreted requires it to remain un-ionized at that temperature. If the gas were ionized, it would be plasma. If it were plasma, it would be subject to the well-known effect of plasma cells that move relative to each other: They drive electric currents through each other.
Those currents would constrict into filaments in response to the Bennett pinch forces. The filaments would give rise to double layers, which in turn would accelerate electrons to high energies. The electrons would spiral in the magnetic fields generated by the currents and emit high-energy synchrotron radiation: x-rays.
Astrophysicists unacquainted with plasma would mistake the x-rays for thermal radiation and calculate a temperature from its energy. The temperature would be in the millions of degrees. But of course that temperature couldn’t cause ionization because, if it did, the hot gas would be plasma, and who knows where that could lead.
It’s best to restrict your attention to the wine swirling in your glass: Drink!
A pair of field aligned currents can be seen discharging from the core of this active galaxy.
Any substance containing charged particles is a plasma: electrons, positive ions, electrically charged dust, neon lights, lightning, planetary magnetospheres, the so-called “solar wind,” stars, and even galaxies are plasma.
Filaments of electric current can flow in closed circuits through plasma. It is the existence of electric circuits in space that distinguishes Electric Universe theory from most conventional viewpoints. Phenomena that appear “mysterious” to space scientists are readily explained using observational evidence coupled with the results from laboratory experiments. That fact helps to distinguish Electric Universe concepts from others. Gravity cannot be modeled in the laboratory in the ways that plasma can.
X-ray emissions from planets, braided plasma filaments, hourglass-shaped nebulae, and jets of charged particles erupting from galactic axes provide observational evidence for the existence of plasma circuits in space. Celestial bodies are not isolated from one another but are connected across vast distances.
Electric discharges in plasma create tube-like magnetic sheaths along their axes. If enough current flows, the discharge causes the sheath to glow while sometimes creating other sheaths within it. These “double layers” form when positive charges build up in one region and negative charges build up nearby. An intense electric field develops, which accelerates charged particles. Electric charges spiral in the magnetic fields, emitting X-rays, extreme ultraviolet, and sometimes gamma rays.
Electromagnetic forces squeeze those conductive channels, called “Birkeland currents,” into filaments that tend to attract each other in pairs. Electric fields that form along the plasma strands generate an attractive force that can be 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity. However, when they get close to each other, instead of merging, the plasma “cables” twist into a helix that rotates faster as it compresses tighter. It is those “cosmic transmission lines” that make up galactic circuits.
The cosmos appears to be interlaced with those interacting circuits. Each of those circuits appears to be composed of untold numbers of twisting Birkeland currents. At the largest observable scale, there are power-consuming loads in the circuits that convert electrical energy into rotational energy. These are known as galaxies.
Since galaxies exist within a filamentary circuit of electricity that flows through the cosmos, they should be evaluated according to electrodynamic principles and not on mechanical kinetic behavior with mysterious magnetic fields added to save the theory.
For example, twin lobes of gamma rays in an hourglass shape extend axially beyond the Milky Way’s central bulge. Each structure measures approximately 65,000 light-years in diameter.
Plasma physicists are familiar with hourglass shapes. The infundibular formations are an unmistakable signature of Birkeland currents squeezing plasma and charged dust into z-pinch compression zones. The intense magnetic fields associated with Birkeland current filaments cause electrons to accelerate with velocities close to light speed. Those excited electrons emit synchrotron radiation, the principle source for gamma rays in space.
Electric Universe advocates have long known that radio lobes far above the poles of active galaxies are the signature of Birkeland currents. In the case of NGC 4710, partial field aligned ring currents can be seen extending out from the galaxy’s core.
According to astronomers, NGC 4710′s central “X” is mysterious, and could be due to the vertical motion of stars around its nucleus. They do not know why the stars are consolidated into symmetrical rings. However, the structure is another example of energized plasma. Looking for answers in gravitational theory will not help to resolve its enigmatic form.
Science and folk tradition are supposed to be strictly separate domains of knowledge, but in practice they often shade into each other.
The image shown above right attempts to map the entire visible universe. The galaxies tend to collect into vast sheets and superclusters of galaxies surrounding large voids giving the universe a cellular appearance.
Since the Enlightenment, people have made a fairly rigid distinction between ideas about the cosmos as formulated by individual thinkers, on a rational basis, and those as expressed collectively by entire peoples, typically rooted in folk memory. The former are labelled science, theory of nature or cosmology, the latter traditional cosmology or mythology. The theoretical difference between scientific and traditional paradigms of the cosmos certainly cannot be overemphasised.
Whereas the former continuously reinvent themselves in response to the latest insights, the latter are conservative by nature. The former fundamentally look forward as they evolve, the latter look backward as they decay. And whereas the former do not tolerate logical inconsistencies, the latter happily admit them.
Nevertheless, it is equally paramount to recognise the ultimate continuity between concepts that circulate between traditional lore and science. The collection of ideas about the cosmos, whether scholarly or popular, deserves a single denominator, as the same subject matter is involved. With the possible exception of cosmovision, an expression thriving especially in the Spanish-speaking world, cosmology really presents itself as the most suitable term for any sets of ideas about the world.
Modern cosmology, taking its earliest beginnings in the proto-scientific speculations of Greek philosophers, contrasts with traditional cosmology as it has prevailed among people through all ages and cultures.
Although the gap between scientific and traditional cosmology is wide and radical in theory, it is considerably smaller in practice, for two reasons. On one hand, cultures perpetuating traditional lore would always incorporate practical observations of nature into their cosmologies, gradually modifying the latter over time. Whilst some might do so unconsciously, believing to remain faithful in the transmission of ideas, others take pride in deliberately ‘upgrading’ or actualising knowledge handed down by their ancestors. Accordingly, traditional cosmologies are never composed of ‘pure’ tradition alone, but always comprise a mixture of inherited ideas and recent observations.
So do scientific cosmologies, for, on the other hand, even the most sincere thinkers remain human beings, susceptible to the same psychological and sociological influences as those that control other aspects of society, such as politics, commerce and religion. Science and scholarship routinely fall short of their aspirations and accommodate logical contradictions, for a variety of reasons.
In addition, intransigence, uncritical loyalty to authorities and tendentious or fashionable modes of reasoning – such as a blind belief in unfettered mathematical derivation – are three types of ‘tradition’-forming behaviour that are rife in the world of professional researchers. New ideas are resisted as much as welcomed – and for the wrong reasons. In excessive cases, such as the ‘Big Bang’ theory of the origin of the cosmos or the reliability of radioactive dating methods, scientific tradition has become so ingrained that the academic community acts in a manner more characteristic of a political or a religious group than a scientific one.
The intermixture of science and uncritical tradition is a stupefying, even lethal combination. Yet science’s marked tendency to develop inviolable traditions and ultimately degenerate into an edifice of myth decorated with fripperies of elegant nomenclature or mathematics may well be rooted in an innate, evolutionary process of habit-forming.
Perhaps the central aim of science, to expose the structure and the workings of the world in a perfectly rational and impartial manner, runs counter to mankind’s hardwired psychological inclinations. The ‘unnatural’ character of the endeavour, from a biological point of view, is precisely why pure science is so hard to do.
The challenge that confronts us now is to return to an imaginative, courageous yet highly critical mindset such as was pioneered during the Enlightenment. Is it possible to reduce contamination of science with sociopolitical factors – such as prestige, sensationalism, the flow of money, fear of ridicule, religious inspiration or quantity of output – to a minimum, to denude science of its capitalist and popularist cloaks and to overcome the crippling syndrome of the ‘emperor’s new clothes’?
Among the many benefits this would yield, one would be a better understanding of the past. For clearly, the true origins of the world’s traditional cosmologies – which run into the thousands – can only be approximated if these cosmologies are distanced from scientific cosmology – the myth must be taken out of today’s science in order to find the science in the myth.