Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe,
brought to you by The Thunderbolts Project™
at Thunderbolts.info
In our most recent episode, physicist Wal Thornhill
outlined some of the emphatic predictive successes
of the electrical theory of the nature of stars.
Stars do not form in processes of gravitational collapse and accretion
but rather, they form from the electromagnetic z-pinch effect
along vast networks of filaments, often in binary pairs.
Stars are not powered by an internal thermonuclear reaction.
The interstellar Birkeland currents along which stars are born
continues to power them throughout their lives
with electrical energy producing heavy elements near the surface of all stars.
Stars do not explode in supernovae
because they exhaust their nuclear fuel and then collapse.
Rather, a star has internal charge separation
as well as electromagnetic energy stored in its equatorial ring
and it ejects matter in the form of electrical discharges
as seen in the stars' bipolar jets
or catastrophically in the form of a supernova.
This new picture of stars is essential
when considering one of the most mysterious phenomena in the cosmos,
called a pulsar.
A pulsar is a regularly pulsing source of radio waves
and other types of electromagnetic radiation.
Since their discovery more than half a century ago,
astrophysicists have proposed that pulsars are caused by hypothetical objects
called neutron stars.
First suggested in the astrophysical literature more than 80 years ago,
a neutron star is believed to be an incredibly small yet massively dense star
mostly composed of tightly packed neutrons,
which forms when the material from a supernova explosion of a massive star
collapses gravitationally.
The average neutron star is thought to be around 10 to 20 kilometers in radius
yet supposedly has about one and a half times the mass of our Sun.
As described on an official NASA webpage,
"... a neutron star is so dense that on Earth,
one teaspoonful would weigh a billion tons!"
A spinning magnetized neutron star is thought to act very much like a lighthouse
with the light beams becoming visible on Earth with each resolution of the star.
If the source of such a signal is a mechanically spinning lighthouse
then it must be spinning incredibly rapidly,
sometimes up to several hundreds of rotations per second or tens of thousands of RPM.
In several Space News episodes, we've reported on discoveries
which challenged the very underpinnings of the neutron star hypothesis.
This includes pulsars whose apparent brightness exponentially exceeds
their absolute theoretical limits.
In 2014, we reported on the discovery of a so-called neutron star
that appeared to shine with the brightness of 10 million Suns.
More recently, scientists using data from the ESA's XMM-Newton Satellite
reported their observation of the so-called
brightest and farthest pulsar ever observed from Earth.
The pulsar reportedly exceeds by 1,000 times
the theoretical limit for such an object's brightness.
The lead author of a paper on the findings stated,
"This object is really challenging our current understanding
of the accretion process for high luminosity stars...
It is 1,000 times more luminous
than the maximum thought possible for an accreting neutron star,
so something else is needed in our models in order to account
for the enormous amount of energy released by the object."
But the impossible brightness of distant celestial objects
is a direct result of assuming that redshift gives the distance of those objects.
The late astronomer Halton Arp proved that redshift is a measure of youthfulness,
not distance.
So the impossible brightness then becomes normal for a nearby object.
It also means that the expanding universe of the Big Bang does not exist.
In other instances, scientists have detected pulsars which appear to,
"defy the laws of physics."
One such object baffled astronomers in 2013
when it was found to switch suddenly and unpredictably between radio and X-ray emissions.
The lead author of a paper on that discovery stated,
"The people creating models will have to rethink what we are discovering here.
When we look now to what is so far published in papers,
nothing at this moment can explain what is happening."
And today, scientists are again puzzling over the behaviors of a so-called neutron star
which completely confounds their theoretical models.
As reported by Science Alert on September 27th, 2018,
"Roughly 24,000 light-years away from Earth,
in the constellation of Cassiopeia, is a dead star that shouldn't exist.
Not, that is, according to current theory.
The neutron star, accreting material from a much larger binary companion,
is spewing out relativistic jets.
The problem is that it also has a strong magnetic field.
And relativistic jets have only been observed in neutron stars
with magnetic fields 1,000 times weaker.
So, our current understanding of how relativistic jets work
simply doesn't account for this weirdo."
The "neutron star" has a magnetic field
that scientists estimate to be 10 trillion times stronger than that of our Sun.
Yet, standard theory holds that such powerful magnetic fields
in a neutron star would actually suppress the emission of relativistic jets.
However, it appears that no number of neutron stars that "shouldn't exist"
will actually persuade astrophysicists that they don't exist.
We asked retired professor of electrical engineering Dr. Donald Scott
to outline some of the fundamental objections to the neutron star hypothesis
and to explain the promising alternatives offered in the fields of plasma cosmology
and the Electric Universe.
I looked at this press release entitled
'Astronomers Have Found a Strange Neutron Star That "Shouldn't Exist."'
Well, I agree with that title right off the bat cause none of them should exist,
that neutron stars don't exist.
But anyway, let's go past that point.
The subtitle of the article says, "Looks like our current theories are wrong."
Amen brother Ben yes, mostly your current theories are wrong,
especially when it comes to something
like a neutron star which doesn't exist in the first place.
But anyway, the article says that about 24,000 light-years away
is a dead star that shouldn't exist.
Not, that is, according to current theory.
The neutron star is accreting material from a much larger binary companion
and it's spewing out relativistic jets.
And the problem is that it has a strong magnetic field.
All right, there's about four different concepts in there.
Magnetic fields yes, that's fine, we all know there are magnetic fields in space.
Astronomers came to that realization late
but they're there now and that's good.
As far as the jets are concerned yes,
absolutely there are these relativistic jets or at least
what's the exact speed of the particles in the jets is unclear sometimes
but this idea of a neutron star is just plain wrong.
Here on Earth, there's a field of study called nuclear chemistry.
Sometimes called nuclear physics but nuclear chemistry,
mainly, is this idea of what goes on in the nucleus of all the known elements.
And the atoms of the known elements need a certain ratio
between the number of neutrons in the nucleus to the protons that are in the nucleus.
You can't have an atom of just neutrons or just protons,
otherwise the thing would come apart.
A single neutron, we know, will be stable for a few minutes
but in around 14 or 15 minutes, a single neutron just splits up
into a proton and an electron and a neutrino.
So how in the world are you going to pack
a gazillion number of neutrons you need together to get a neutron star?
Because having too many or too few neutrons relative to protons results in an unstable
radioactive nucleus and it's going to break up and go into a more stable form.
So at its root this idea of a neutron star has a problem.
In fact, it has a, I think, a lethal problem.
They just don't exist.
We've reported on numerous discoveries which defy the belief in gravitational accretion
at all scales in the cosmos;
including in the formation of comets, asteroids, planets and stars.
Indeed, scientists observing the disks of material around so-called young stars,
recently reported that the material required to form planets simply isn't there.
We asked Dr. Scott his thoughts on the notion of a so-called 'accreting neutron star.'
This idea of an accretion disk, they use the word accretion,
accretion several times in the article.
And I have a little quote here from, actually from my book.
I said, "The assumption that a spinning cloud of gas and dust particles
under the influence of gravity alone accretes
into a star or planet or galaxy, is false."
The answer to the question about how the spinning disk loses its angular momentum,
usually involves friction.
You got this spinning disk out there in cosmic space and it's spinning around
and somehow it slows down and collapses because it, you know, if you,
like an ice skater brings his arms more and more closely in toward his body
and then spins faster and faster,
the contracting cloud would spin faster and faster
if it actually accreted and grew smaller.
So the increased spin rate would counteract the collapse.
But no, they say, well, that friction slows it down.
Well friction with what?
There's nothing out there to have friction with.
We have suggested that many of the so-called anomalies surrounding pulsars
can be resolved if the source is a lightning-like electrical discharge.
In fact, this idea was proposed in 1995 in the scientific paper
'Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory and Experiment'
by co-authors: Dr. Anthony Peratt and Kevin Healy.
They examined well over a dozen pulsar anomalies
that the standard lighthouse model has failed to explain.
Using electromagnetic particle-in-cell simulations, they proposed a,
"...magnetospheric disk field-aligned current transmission line system
as the origin of the observed radiation,
with external wave excitation by as yet an unexplained source."
We asked Dr. Scott to explain some of the theoretical possibilities
this research opens up.
Pulsar is a point, out in the cosmos, that astronomers look at with their telescopes
and their spectroscopes and all sorts of things
and they see that this little star, way out there, is blinking.
Blinking quite rapidly.
Some of them blink every 10 seconds or so.
Others blink every second.
Others blink every millisecond and so the question is well, what's going on out there?
And what the astronomers came up with was this idea; well, it's like a lighthouse.
It's a rotating beam of light, just like a lighthouse.
It goes flash, flash, flash and then that's why they're there.
But then of course, when they became millisecond in their period,
they'd flash on and off in thousandths of a second, that means this star
or whatever it is, has to be rotating at a, you know, a rate of hundreds of RPM
and maybe even thousands and actually tens of thousands of RPM.
And if you get something ten miles across rotating at 10,000 rpm,
you know, it's going to fly apart.
Well okay, then it isn't made out of regular material.
It's made out of neutrons, closely packed, heavily packed-in neutrons.
Well, after a while they began to look at more and more of these pulsars,
they realized that the speed necessary even for a neutron star
was beyond the speed of a dentist's drill.
It was in the tens of thousands of RPM.
And so they said, well that's strange matter then.
And so they came up with a new hypothesis to take the place of the old hypothesis.
The old hypothesis, the neutron star of course as I point out, is wrong.
But this now, replacement hypothesis of strange matter is also wrong.
As far as the actual cause of the pulsars,
there is a well-known circuit in electrical engineering called a relaxation oscillator
and years ago Tony Peratt along with a fellow with the name of Healy,
is the author of a paper that explains how electromagnetic pulses on a transmission line,
bouncing back and forth like water wave, bouncing back and forth in a nut dish.
That you lift the one side and then the other side
and you can get this thing to slosh back and forth.
Well, you can do the same thing with voltage waves on an electric transmission line.
And if things get out of control, that's how the famous Northeast blackout occurred.
These bouncing waves, bouncing voltage waves back and forth,
knocked out the breakers at the end of the line in the whole city of New York
and everybody, half the country went black.
But anyway, that is the real cause of these pulsars.
Probably, it's an electrical phenomenon.
You can make them in a sophomore electrical engineering laboratory
and you can make them blink on and off with little neon tubes
and it's very simple matter to construct a relaxation oscillator out of a gas tube.
Well, what's a gas tube?
Well, it's a plasma.
And so, right away, you come back and say oh, these things are a plasma phenomenon!
An electrically driven plasma phenomenon
due to an intermittent signal going back and forth along a transmission line.
And since many of these pulsars are binary stars,
there's in all probability some sort of a plasma connection between the two binary stars,
at least if they're close enough.
And there is a perfect setup for a pulsar
so you don't need neutron stars or strange matter or any other kind of red or green ghosts.
Just electricity and some plasma will do it for you fine.