Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe,
brought to you by The Thunderbolts Project™
at Thunderbolts.info
So, continuing our discussion on the so-called crisis in
cosmology, let's talk more about this latest announcement from
the Keck Observatory which describes the latest verification
of the anomalous accelerating expansion rate of the universe.
For the first time, scientists have attempted to estimate
the expansion rate using a new method involving gravitational lensing.
Now, the concepts behind the standard ideas about
gravitational lensing is something that's been discussed
at some of the annual Thunderbolts conferences.
For example, Dr. Edward Dowdye is a laser
optics engineer and, in fact, he was a NASA physicist and he's presented his
case on the importance of plasma in understanding the phenomena that
scientists attribute to so-called lensing in space.
So Wal, fundamentally, why don't you explain the Electric Universe
interpretation of the effects that astronomers do observe
and which they describe as "gravitational lensing?"
The concept of gravitational lensing is faulty at the very
beginning because it assumes that gravity has an effect on space.
It doesn't; it's an electric force, it's a dipolar force just like
magnetism, and if that dipole electric force were able to warp space or, with
the powerful magnets we have today you should be able to
see distinct lensing effects using magnets, we don't.
Gravity doesn't affect light directly but it can, by modifying the density of the ether;
the ether is all-pervasive, it's the substrate of the universe, it's
the medium through which light travels, it's the medium through which the
gravitational and magnetic forces and the electric force travel.
It behaves like any medium in the presence of the gravitational field because it's a
material medium and has to be material, of vanishingly small
mass, which indicates there is possibly neutrinos involved--they will respond to
gravity just like any other material medium, and in this case like a gas, and
form an atmosphere about a celestial object, and that atmosphere can refract
light, so that you will get lensing but it's got nothing to do with gravity per
se, it's the effect of gravity on the environment of that body.
So yes, you can get gravitational lensing, but the concept that they're using is invalid.
And principally, because of this idea that redshift indicates that these
objects that they're seeing near a low redshifted galaxy, are far away, is incorrect.
All it means is that they're younger than the object that's in that center of that view.
And what do we find most often close to galaxies? Quasars,
redshifted quasars, and they are, in Halton Arp's research, the offspring of an
active galaxy, galaxies beget baby galaxies, and they form initially as a
quasar of low mass and high redshift and low brightness, and their brightness,
their mass and their redshift, all change, become closer to their parent over time,
and as a result, they become companion galaxies of various kinds.
So he gives a genealogy, he shows almost
biological aspect to galactic formation and so, when
we see these objects in distant, or so-called lensed objects, what we must be
looking at is an active galaxy surrounded by some of its redshifted offspring.
Because they're fired off in episodes, they often
have different, slightly different, quantized redshifts.
If they've misinterpreted, which they're being done here by these people, they can
be interpreted in a way which may appear to give some credence to the distance
scales but the distance scales, as Halton Arp has shown, are
completely haywire in modern cosmology, right,
the redshift--distance relationship is mythical.
Arp wrote on the subject of gravitational lensing, he said, "...you must
remember that it was invented for extra galactic objects
because that was the only escape from observations which
required the physical association of objects of much different
redshift. The low mass particle masses..., which I've
talked about,... give rise to a lower luminosity. That gives a rough, higher
redshift--fainter apparent magnitude relation for galaxies of different age
at the same distance. And he notes here also and this is something that I picked up.
"This should also apply to the supernovae within the galaxies.
Of course, this fainter than expected supernova discovery gave rise to
the idea that the universe is expanding more rapidly, it's accelerating!
But that's sheer nonsense, it means that you don't
understand supernova explosions either, which is not a surprise
when you think they don't understand gravity.
Wal, speaking of Halton Arp and our earlier discussion
about the nature of quasars, let's talk now about one of
the more remarkable discoveries in the space sciences in recent months.
In September of this year, in a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal, a
team of scientists reported their observation of "six quiet galaxies
shifting into quasars" in a period of time that is literally thousands of
times more rapid than standard cosmology can explain.
I'll read to you briefly from a Science Alert report,
"In a spectacular fashion, six galaxies have just undergone a huge transformation
in a matter of mere months. They've gone from relatively peaceful galaxies to
active quasars-the brightest of all galaxies, blasting
vast amounts of radiation out into the Universe.
...such changing-look transitions are usually observed occurring
between different types of Seyfert galaxies... These Seyfert
transitions were what the team set out to study."
Now, one of the authors of the study states, "Instead, we found a whole
new class of active galactic nucleus capable
of transforming a wimpy galaxy to a luminous quasar.
Theory suggests that a quasar should take thousands
of years to turn on, but these observations suggest
that it could happen very quickly. It tells us that the theory is all wrong.
We thought that Seyfert transformation was the major
puzzle. But now we have a bigger issue to solve..."
And of course, as we reported previously, this isn't the
first time that scientists have observed "impossibly rapid changes in quasars."
So Wal, why don't you tell us, generally speaking, why these kinds of
incredibly rapid cosmic scale transformations
are actually expected in the Electric Universe?
I point to the research of plasma cosmologists, which
shows that the active galactic nucleus that ejects the quasar, are in fact
plasmoids, the most compact form of high-energy storage known.
The electrical energy poured into the plasmoid
from the spiral arms, forms a tiny doughnut-shaped object.
At some point, the energy density closest to the axis of the
plasmoid forces the electrons and protons to collide and form neutrons.
Having no charge allows the neutrons to escape from
the electromagnetic galactic nucleus in axial jets.
It seems the neutrons are nature's Houdini's.
They only exist as a dance between an electron
and a proton for the short time required to escape from the
electromagnetic prison of the nucleus of an atom or the nucleus of the galaxy.
But in doing so, they give birth to either a new element or a new galaxy, respectively.
Nature never does things the hard way.
When the neutrons do decay, the freed electrons are held back by the galactic
magnetic field more strongly than the heavier protons, which now form a quasar.
I proposed that an initially positively charged quasar is
therefore followed by a beam of electrons from its parent
galaxy, which would explain both the observed quantized
redshifts and the increase in mass of the quasar,
as a result of increasing charge polarization
within the matter in the quasar, as the electrons arrive.
Of course, the bursty nature of these
outbursts from active galactic nuclei suggests that the electrons may also
arrive in bursts, just like the ejections themselves, which would predict and
explain seemingly impossibly sudden changes in quasars.
Sudden changes on the galactic scale, and even on the stellar
scale, are expected in the Electric Universe, simply because
we are dealing with a coherent, connected, electrical
system operating in real time, in the case of a galaxy--across the entire galaxy.
And this is because the electric force is instantaneous
and the release of stored electrical energy takes place
like a sudden lightning bolt followed by an exponential
decay, as that energy dissipates into space.
And this is behind all sorts of phenomena that are puzzling
researchers at present, where they're getting gamma-ray bursts and fast radio
bursts and all sorts of things from seemingly nowhere, and this is another
point that Hannes Alfven made; plasma currents that are flowing through space
will produce double layers and these double layers can, if the current density
gets too high, actually shut the current off, and the result is that the energy is
suddenly concentrated at that point, and there's a sudden burst like a lightning
bolt and it can happen in apparently empty space, because these double layers
are often in dark mode discharge as it's called.
In the case of galaxies, the plasmoid itself in the
laboratory, it's known that the plasmoid forms and the
energy that it concentrates, when it gets to a certain point
at very high density, the electrons and the protons which are
held in that plasmoid, when they're traveling down this core of the doughnut,
is where they're closest together, and that's where the breakdown will first occur.
And that breakdown forms a beam of neutrons. In the laboratory, plasmoids are
known to be the most copious source of neutrons when they break down.
So all of this can be tested in the laboratory,
which is one of the big advantages of
the Electric Universe cosmology over Standard cosmology.
Well indeed, and when it comes to cosmological phenomena, I've always
felt that the most significant type of discovery is the evidence for physical
connections and interactions of objects over unfathomable distances.
I've said before that the model of the Electric
Universe might be: "There are no islands in space"
and we see this verified more and more frequently.
A few months ago, we reported on the discovery of a vast
radio-emitting filament which is connecting two galaxy
clusters across 10 million light-years and this seems like
a dramatic confirmation of a prediction that Anthony Peratt made decades ago,
that cosmic scale currents exist in deep space connecting these types of objects.
And now, just in the last few weeks, we've seen the report that distant galaxies,
which are separated by tens of millions of light years, have been found rotating
in synchronicity with one another; a Science Alert report on that discovery
states, "The discoveries could force us to rethink our understanding of the Universe."
An elite author of a paper on this discovery says, "The observed
coherence must have some relationship with large-scale structures, because it
is impossible that the galaxies separated by six mega-
parsecs directly interact with each other."
But I think what the scientists should have
said is that the phenomenon is "impossible"
under the assumption of an inert and disconnected universe.
So Wal, why don't you shed some light on why, like countless other
discoveries, this is not impossible, nor surprising in the Electric Universe?
The Electric Universe has no problem with the synchronization
of galaxies over colossal distances simply because
they are all being driven electrically by the same Birkeland current filaments,
and the spiral galaxies tend to be strung along them like Catherine wheels on a wire.
Both the rotation and the form of a spiral galaxy
is explained experimentally and theoretically by plasma cosmologists, and
the fact that has been discovered recently, that the rotation of galaxies
seems to be somehow strangely similar, is all tied up to the fact that they're all
being driven electrically by these circuits, and it's just like electric
motors in the home, if they're connected to the same circuit, they will all tend to
be synchronized in some fashion, either by the number of cycles per second of
the power supply, but in the case of galaxies, all
this can be tested and proven in the laboratory.
A critical failure of modern cosmology
is to assume that gravity is the only force operating on a cosmic scale.
Plasma cosmologists, for the last 50 years, have shown that this is incorrect.
Electromagnetic forces dominate on the cosmic scale.
Supercomputer simulations have shown that introducing
gravity into their electromagnetic models has no effect.
This should be no surprise given that, compared to the
electric force, the force of gravity is effectively zero.
This should have been obvious to theorists given that
spiral galaxies rotate like the solid disk of a Faraday
motor and not a gravitational system where the outer
satellites rotate more slowly than the inner.
Once again, our Earth-centric view has held back science.
Plasma cosmologists showed that spiral galaxies form like Catherine wheels
along spiraling intergalactic Birkeland current filaments.
It explains both their axial alignments and their rotation.
Of course, these recent discoveries should force a
rethink of the fundamental understanding of the universe.
It should have done so, decades ago, but those
doing the research have not been trained to see the alternatives,
which have been available since late last century.
Cosmologists are taught that yes, there is
electricity in space but it doesn't do anything.
They are also taught a basic form of plasma physics, which the Nobel
prize-winning plasma cosmologist Hannes Alfven showed, is invalid in space, and
the tunnel-vision, induced by their training, prevents modern
cosmologists from attending plasma cosmology lectures.