Welcome to Space News from The Electric Universe,
brought to you by The Thunderbolts Project™
at Thunderbolts.info
Today, physicist Wal Thornhill concludes his three-part presentation
on the early science results from NASA's Juno mission to the gas giant Jupiter.
As previously noted, like countless other recent space discoveries,
the mission findings are challenging, not only long-held assumptions about Jupiter,
but also consensus theories of planet and star formation
and the history of our solar system.
On the question of Jupiter's internal structure and composition,
Thornhill offered the provocative thesis that Jupiter is hollow.
In this episode Thornhill presents his predictions for forthcoming Juno revelations,
including the mystery of what lies beneath the planet’s Great Red Spot.
We begin with some further explanation of electrogravity.
Of course, the idea of a hollow Earth with an inner surface like a geode,
is a formidable challenge to our entrenched belief that the earth has a dense core.
It's a belief that can only be overcome by explanation,
by demonstration and by willingness to consider the evidence.
Consider for a moment that the electrogravity model presented here
applies equally to any spinning object,
where the heavy nuclei in each atom are offset radially from the spin axis
to form tiny radial electric dipoles.
This is the simple reason why inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass.
The centrifugal force is not a fictitious or pseudo force,
it's identical to gravity.
It's the reason why a spinning Space Station, like the one famously modeled
in Stanley Kubrick's landmark film, ”A Space Odyssey”, produces its own gravity.
This raises the question how someone in the space station knows they are spinning.
Only by looking out of a window and seeing the stars sweep past.
The so-called fixed stars are the reference standard for all motion in the electric universe,
because the electric force of gravity connects all matter in the universe,
practically in real time.
That's why gyros are used for inertial navigation,
because they tend to lock themselves gravitationally
to the matter in the rest of the universe.
Think about it.
In a universe of countless negatively polarized stars and planets repelling each other,
a gyro has a positively polarized rim
which is attracted to all of those celestial bodies.
Sadly, those who have demonstrated what seemed to be anti-gravity effects of gyros,
have not had any useful understanding of gravity from physicists
to explain what they were observing.
Most significant was Professor Eric Laithwaite’s 1974-75
Royal Institution’s Christmas lecture,
finally posted online in December 2013, which I recommend watching.
As for willingness to consider eyewitness evidence,
scientists at the Royal Institution behaved predictably
by refusing to broadcast the remarkable lecture on the grounds
as the Royal Institution website says and I quote,
”Laithwaite appears to have used various engineering approximations in his calculations
on the behavior of gyroscopes.
And when told by professional mathematicians that once the calculations were done rigorously
there was no discrepancy, he refused to believe them.”
These are the same professional mathematicians
who can't define mass or energy in terms of matter
and have no sensible model of the real nature of gravity.
Laithwaite was only one of three people since 1945
to deliver more than one series of the Royal Institution’s Christmas lectures.
His first series was the first to be televised on the new BBC-2 channel.
Back to Jupiter's origin and composition.
Decades ago the plasma cosmologists and Nobel prize-winning plasma physicist
Hannes Alfvén predicted that stars would be formed along Birkeland current filaments
inside molecular clouds.
He famously said, “Gravitational systems are the ashes of former electrical systems.”
Infrared Space Telescopes have recently confirmed this,
but no acknowledgment has been forthcoming from settled astrophysics
because of their taboo against electricity in space.
The electric universe simply adds that both stars and planets are formed in the same event.
The cosmic lightning characteristically snakes about
and is observed to toss the newly formed bodies out laterally.
But collisions are avoided by repulsive gravity.
The thousands of crazy exoplanetary systems are simply explained
by the inward gravitational pressure of all other bodies in the universe
against a repulsive gravitational force of the nearest dominant body.
Hot Jupiters, orbiting their star closely, is not a puzzle.
When we get rid of the gravitational accretion and merger by collision myth.
On the question of the composition of Jupiter,
plasma physicists have shown that Birkeland currents
draw the heavy elements towards the centers of celestial bodies
and the gases form their atmospheres, with hydrogen and helium outermost.
So, the composition of Jupiter can't be assessed from its atmosphere.
Jupiter is not mostly hydrogen and helium.
All of the issues raised, mean Jupiter is a solid shell, composed of heavy elements.
It will have structure, both on its external and internal surfaces.
Jupiter is not as Scott said of the simplistic standard model,
”boring and uniform inside.”
Anywhere you look will not look the same.
So let's return to Nasa's teleconference.
Scott Bolton, Juno principal investigator said,
”There are motions deep inside Jupiter that people hadn't anticipated
and the gravity field is consistent with that.
What we were really looking for was a core,
whether there was a compact core or no core,
and instead what we found was that it looks really fuzzy.”
”There may be a core there and it may be very big and it may be partially dissolved...
that came as a big surprise to us, that there was no core.
These mysteries extended to our magnetic field experiment.”
Jack Connerney, Juno deputy principal investigator, said
”On Earth the compass doesn't deviate much from the north-south direction.
On Jupiter the magnetic field was both stronger than we expected
where we expected it to be strong
and it was weaker than we expected
where we expected it to be weak.
”There are small spatial variations which indicate we may be very close to the source.
So it may be above the metallic hydrogen and may operate in the molecular hydrogen envelope.”
The electrogravity model of hollow celestial objects
removes any idea of planetary magnetic fields being generated by internal dynamos.
That hypothesis has never been able to successfully model the complexity
and variety of planetary magnetic fields found in the solar system.
It doesn't work for the Sun either.
As Faraday found, magnetic fields are intimately associated with electric currents,
but electro-gravity is also associated with magnetism.
Both forces have the same origin in the distortion of protons and electrons.
The earth shows a connection between the two forces
which requires a fundamental reinterpretation.
The simplest explanation for a dipole magnetic field
aligned roughly with the axis of rotation of a planet,
is that the planet carries a surface charge which constitutes a current.
This was considered for the origin of the earth's field
but it was rejected because the electric current of 10^9 amperes
required, seemed too high because the charge it implied
would generate a tremendously strong electric field at the earth's surface
which doesn't exist.
However, there is a clear air electric field of about 100 volts per meter.
The problem with this argument is that to measure voltage requires a reference
and the earth or ground is considered our reference voltage.
And it is clear that the earth has plenty of electrons
to carry the return current of our Power Networks.
But the fundamental error comes from the belief that stars and planets
can be considered electrically neutral in space plasma.
This has been proven incorrect in the case of the Sun,
where numerous electrical double layers or plasma sheaths
have been found in the interplanetary plasma
that reduce the electric field between them.
The earth has plasma sheaths in the ionosphere and magnetosphere which do the same thing.
So the 100 volts per meter measured in the lower atmosphere
doesn't give a true picture of the charge on the earth.
Venus's lack of a magnetic field could be down to its ultra-slow rotation,
but it leaves Uranus’ and Neptune’s oddly offset magnetic fields unanswered.
It seems more probable that the cool solid shells of planets
retain some of their nascent magnetic fields,
when the ambient field of their birthing Birkeland current was at its peak.
Planetary rotation can also be understood
as an imprint of the rotating Birkeland current filament.
The slow retrograde rotation of Venus,
its heat and lack of a magnetic field,
argues for a different, recent birth.
The global myths of Venus as the archetypal comet, match this idea
and introduce an alternative birth process for smaller rocky planets and moons
by a process of electro-gravitic expulsion from a much larger body.
This proposal makes sense of the large numbers of satellites of the gas giants
and the spectacular icy rings of Saturn
which are of very recent origin.
Finally a word about Jupiter's Great Red Spot.
Its continued presence for centuries is another argument for a solid body beneath the clouds.
It's giant tornadic form is that of a continuous electrical discharge vortex
from an elevated surface feature acting like a lightning rod,
which could be the birth scar of one of Jupiter's moons.
The Juno spacecraft is due to observe the Great Red Spot closely
on its next close encounter with Jupiter
where I expect even greater gravitational and electromagnetic anomalies
to be found associated with the spot.
For continuous updates on Space News from the Electric Universe,
stay tuned to
Thunderbolts.info