Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe,
brought to you by The Thunderbolts Project™
at Thunderbolts.info
Part 2 of our interview with Wal Thornhill about the recently imaged "black hole".
Well, I think it's fair to say that when it comes to conditions
at the center of any galaxy, some of the most interesting data
has to come from our own celestial neighborhood in the Milky Way.
I remember last year, we reported on the "shocking discovery" that
low-mass stars were forming just three light years away
from the hypothetical supermassive black hole at Sagittarius A,
and in fact I have in front of me a quote from a Phys.org report on that discovery.
It states, "At this distance,
tidal forces driven by the supermassive black hole should be energetic enough
to rip apart clouds of dust and gas before they can form stars."
But since the black hole's non-existence is not
and has not been for a very long time on the table
as a theoretical option for astrophysicists,
this type of discovery, like countless others, is simply forgotten
or at least no emphasis is placed upon it.
So what are your thoughts on some of the best evidences in the Milky Way,
which tell us that it is a plasmoid and not a black hole at the center of the galaxy?
The stars that orbit that so-called black hole in Sagittarius A star,
do so very rapidly which suggests, if you're using gravity in your equation,
that the mass at the center of the, or the focus of that orbit
is of the value they give, in millions of Suns or, you know, maybe even billions,
and that's only because they're using the wrong force,
we're talking about electromagnetic forces.
The other thing is that it was pointed out, I think by Ed Dowdye,
who's done valuable work on looking at gravitational, so called,
gravitational lensing in pointing out that it doesn't make sense.
He said that stars orbiting that black hole,
particularly ones that may have an orbit that's tilted and passes either behind the black hole
or very close to behind, should suffer gravitational lensing,
and I've seen no evidence that in any of the telescopic observations of the Sagittarius A.
And they've been following them now so I think other manage to
observed complete orbit of at least one star, possibly more.
The other thing was that there was a report of a cloud of material
that was due to be sort of 'torn to shreds'
as it went close to the black hole and that didn't happen.
Well, of course we're not dealing with gravity, we're dealing with electrodynamics
which is at the heart of real physics.
That is, the fundamental physics of the universe is electrodynamics;
gravity is merely a minor effect.
We happen to live in an electrically neutral environment
where gravity does have an effect that is noticeable, but even for us
it is so weak that the entire Earth can't stop us from jumping away from it
even if only for a second or so.
Well, one of the most important phenomena we've talked about for years on Space News,
is the pervasive filamentary structures, which we see everywhere in the cosmos.
Filamentation of course, is produced by electric currents traveling through plasmas
and of the question of what lies at the center of the Milky Way,
over a year ago we reported on the discovery of a 2 ½ lightyear-long filament
which appears to reach directly to the center of the Milky Way.
So how does this discovery relate to the plasma cosmology theory
of a plasmoid at the centers of galaxies?
These filaments, and some of them are twisted,
I believe also that they've seen a twisted pair of filaments
heading into the Sagittarius A star region.
The circuit that Hannes Alfven drew, all those decades ago,
the Nobel-prize-winning plasma physicist, showed that the current,
it has to be a circuit, if you've got an electric current, it must be part of the circuit,
and he showed that the current would flow in along the Galactic arms
to the plasmoid in the center and then out along the spin axis.
And then, at some distance he didn't go into where, the circuit was completed
but it was at some distance from the galaxy.
Now, since he put forward that circuit,
it's been discovered of course that galaxies tend to,
seem to align their spin axes along, what you might call, cosmic strings
and they're beginning now to be able to map these strings
and these connections between galaxies.
Now, none of this makes any sense from gravitational point of view,
because gravitational forces are centered on a center of mass
― not along a line which filament is,
so both Hannes Alfven and Halton Arp
in his observational research into galactic forms and structures and behavior,
all coincide and form the basis for Electric Universe cosmology.
The very idea of curved space or space-time as he called it,
he attached two words together with a hyphen,
both of them are merely concepts, they're not physical things
so how you curve non-physical concepts is a question that is not answered,
and we're shown diagrams where you have a heavy object
on what looks like a rubber sheet being deformed,
the rubber sheet being deformed by the weight of this object.
But that uses gravity to explain gravity,
or to describe it and it doesn't make much sense, if you think about it.
Deleting the force of gravity raises a simple question, well,
what is it that stretches the spring on the balance that measures the kilo of,
you know, potatoes?
That is a force that we feel, a force,
you know, we're very well aware of it when we fall over,
you cannot just make it a trick of geometry.
So that's the first problem,
the major problem with black hole theory and the big bang
is this idea that you can have a concentration of mass or energy at a point.
Well, the point is non-physical,
no physical object, not even a subatomic particle can occupy zero space
and yet we see all kinds of mathematical concepts being put forward as being physical
and this has created huge confusion.
In fact, the language has become largely meaningless.
Even more so, when you consider that there is no physical definition
of the quantities mass and energy,
there is no physical definition.
Now, that means we don't understand E=mc².
So come on Einstein, you know, tell us what you mean!
Explain it, nobody can explain it at present,
no physicists on Earth can explain it because they haven't defined their terms.
And the problem has been the dominance of mathematicians in physics,
rather than physicists and what we call natural philosophers.
Those with a broader education,
the ones who got us through the 19th century with the huge number of developments
which actually brought us to the brink of the Electric Universe model in the 1870s
with the Germans, Wilhelm Weber in particular and his electrodynamics law,
that you don't hear about that, I never heard anything about that at university
and when you look in the textbooks, you won't find anything about it.
We are not given ideas to compare and think for ourselves
and that is the failure of education these days,
we're just given things to remember and facts
which are not facts but conjectures quite often.
The result is that you are unfit for the job once you leave University.
I've said this before, you know, that electrical engineers
are the ones who should be doing astrophysics because it is an electrodynamic universe,
it is not a gravitational universe.
Well, of all the issues we've talked about on Space News,
I think the most powerful evidence for cosmic scale electric currents
is of course cosmic magnetism.
So but it's not technologically possible to directly measure electric currents,
the way that scientists can infer their presence and their strength
is indirectly through the magnetic fields that they must produce.
So at every opportunity, I remind the audience just how recently
mainstream gravity-centric cosmology
downplayed or even dismissed the idea of cosmic scale magnetic fields.
Here for maybe the third time, I'd like to read this quote
from the 1999 online NASA feature
which asked the question, do magnetic fields exist throughout space?
And it states,
"On the cosmological scale, there is no data to suggest that magnetic fields are present.
They certainly are not important in the dynamics of the universe
for any reasonable range of field strengths
consistent with present observational constraints."
So why don't you discuss what has actually been discovered about cosmic magnetism
and why it's so important for the Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology?
Now, one of the beliefs that's inculcated in students and postdocs as well,
at all levels in astrophysics,
is that electricity plays no particular role in the universe
which is quite incredible when you think of the use we have for electricity
and that the universe has no use for it.
And when you map magnetic fields which the radio telescopes have done for decades
and more recent telescopes that are being built, which are able to do it even better,
they find that the universe is almost, in fact they come to the point now,
where they think that magnetic fields play a large role in star formation,
because they've been able to map the magnetic fields
in star forming regions inside molecular clouds.
Now this kind of modern observation technique is showing more and more often
the fact that magnetic fields are everywhere and not only that;
they are structured, they're not chaotic,
which is what the gravitational theory would have us believe
that it's a shock-induced chaos and whatnot, but they find ordered fields,
particularly around spiral galaxies.
And you do not have a magnetic field without electric currents.
Electric currents are absolutely necessary because you need
an accelerating force on a charged particle to generate the magnetic field
and the ordered magnetic fields indicate ordered electric currents,
all of which matches the filamentary nature of the universe
which is also being discovered.