Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe,
brought to you by The Thunderbolts Project™
at Thunderbolts.info
Astronomers have recently reported what is being hailed as the
"first radio telescope detection of a planetary mass object beyond our solar system"
The object, which is being described as a possible "rogue planet"
because it's not accompanied by a parent star,
is challenging some of astronomers' bedrock ideas about,
among other things,
the assumed differences between gas giant planets and brown dwarf stars.
The object is said to be about a dozen times more massive than Jupiter
and yet its magnetic field is about 200 times stronger than Jupiter's.
As an author of a paper published on the finding states,
this tremendous magnetism
"...presents huge challenges to our understanding of the dynamo mechanism
that produces the magnetic fields in brown dwarfs and exoplanets
and helps drive the auroras we see."
But the belief that dynamos within stars and planets
are the source of those bodies' magnetic fields
is just one of countless beliefs that discovery routinely disregards.
In this episode, the chief science advisor to The Thunderbolts Project, Wal Thornhill,
explores why this groundbreaking discovery is resoundingly consistent
with the electrical theory of planet and star formation.
Phys.org on August 23rd reported,
"Astronomers have made the first radio-telescope detection
of a planetary-mass object beyond our Solar System.
The object, about a dozen times more massive than Jupiter,
is a surprisingly strong magnetic powerhouse and a "rogue,"
traveling through space unaccompanied by any parent star."
The word rogue is used here in the sense of stray or lost
because planets are believed to form from the leftover disk of gas and dust
following the gravitational formation of a star.
So this rogue planet must have escaped from its parent star,
or did it?
Perhaps it is institutionalized science that is lost and become rogue,
not the lonely planet.
Forty years ago, the founder of plasma cosmology Hannes Alfvén
wrote that the nebula hypothesis, and I quote,
"...has over the centuries become a sacrosanct myth."
In 1978 he published a paper in Astrophysics and Space Science where he wrote,
"There are convincing arguments for the view that
the clouds out of which stars condense are ionized.
The problem of star formation therefore naturally belongs
to the field of cosmic plasma physics."
He said,
"Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems."
This is the same conclusion adopted by the Electric Universe
which goes further into the electrical nature of stars.
Meanwhile, in the 21st century it's full steam ahead
on the Titanic of publicly funded science
as it pays no heed to warnings of the massive iceberg ahead; of plasma cosmology.
It's a cosmology founded on experiment and electrodynamic modeling
which already has a string of successful predictions
without the need for imaginary dark matter, black holes or the big bang.
The Electric Universe goes beyond plasma cosmology and says,
both stars and planets are formed in the same electrical birth process
inside electromagnetically accreted molecular clouds.
Infrared space telescopes like Herschel
have spectacularly confirmed Alfvén's model of star formation
along filamentary Birkeland currents inside those clouds.
As the mass of the bodies along the filament increases,
the snaking motion of the Birkeland filament leaves them behind.
It is then that electrogravitic capture takes place
to form the unexpectedly diverse exoplanetary systems
that have been discovered by the thousands.
Of course, some of the newborn bodies will not be captured
instead wandering alone in space.
They are not rogues or orphans,
they have no parent star.
They are independent celestial bodies
which are hard to detect because the electrical energy they intercept from the galaxy
is much lower than the bright photospheric stars.
There is no lower limit to the size of a body
that can accept electric power from the galaxy.
So the temperatures of those bodies will range down to levels
suitable for liquid water and life.
The light of a red star is due to the distended anode glow
of an electrically low stressed star.
Our Sun's more compact red anode glow is seen briefly as the chromosphere
during total solar eclipses.
Beyond the heliosphere and the Sun's electrical domain,
Jupiter-sized bodies are classed as brown dwarf stars.
And since the glowing plasma sheath is far larger than the body within,
the standard mass-luminosity calculations are misleading.
Their light has nothing to do with the imagined surface of a cooling failed star
which may be one reason why
brown dwarf masses are notoriously difficult to measure.
In December 2008, NASA published a report
'Astronomers Find the Two Dimmest Stellar Bulbs'
in which the luminosity of a brown dwarf
was theoretically too high for its measured temperature.
The report reads,
"...something was puzzling.
The brightness of the object was twice what would be expected for a brown dwarf
with its particular temperature.
The solution?
The object must have twice the surface area.
In other words, it's twins, with each body shining only half as bright,
and each with a mass of 30 to 40 times that of Jupiter.
Both bodies are 1 million times fainter than the Sun in total light,
and at least 1 billion times fainter in visible light alone."
In December 1999, I wrote in ― Other stars, other worlds, other life?
"The apparent size and color of an electric star is an electrical phenomenon.
If Jupiter's magnetosphere were lit up at opposition
it would appear the size of the full Moon...
The light of a red star
is due to the distended anode glow of an electrically low-stressed star...
Red Giants are a more visible and scaled-up example
of what an L-type Brown Dwarf star might look like close-up."
Of course, the phys.org article unquestioningly quotes Melodie Kao
who discovered the rogue planet while a graduate student at Caltech.
She says,
"This object is right at the boundary between a planet and a brown dwarf, or 'failed star',
and is giving us some surprises that can potentially help us understand
magnetic processes on both stars and planets."
Of course there are surprises!
There is no boundary, no failed stars.
All stars will exhibit magnetic fields associated
with their electrical input from the galaxy.
The Sun's magnetic behavior has never been successfully explained by an internal model.
Nor has the Earth's
and helioseismologists have recently found
that the convection, hypothesized by the standard model of the Sun
to generate its magnetism,
just isn't there.
Once again,
the belief that bright stars are extraordinarily stable thermonuclear bombs is stated as fact
and I quote,
"Brown dwarfs are objects too massive to be considered planets,
yet not massive enough to sustain nuclear fusion of hydrogen in their cores
― the process that powers stars."
The peacefulness of the night sky belies such a belief.
Bright stars require an extraordinarily robust photospheric control system
to maintain their steady radiant output.
The Electric Sun model shows it is a natural feature of a plasma discharge
exhibiting anode tufting
and it is being confirmed by the SAFIRE experiment.
The phys.org report goes on,
"[Brown dwarfs] originally were thought to not emit radio waves,
but in 2001 a Very Large Array discovery of radio flaring in one
revealed strong magnetic activity."
Flaring of red stars is a feature of the electrical model.
They lack the transistor-like control mechanism of a bright tufted photosphere.
So red stars eject charged matter
in order to meet sudden changes in their electrical environment.
The accelerating matter emits radio waves and generates strong magnetic activity.
No mysteries here.
The phys.org report says that some brown dwarfs have strong auroras.
"The auroras seen on Earth are caused by our planet's magnetic field
interacting with the solar wind.
However, solitary brown dwarfs do not have a solar wind
from a nearby star to interact with.
How the auroras are caused in brown dwarfs is unclear..."
Here we see another belief stated as fact.
The auroras in the solar system are not caused by
a planet's magnetic field interacting with the solar wind
because the solar wind is not a physical wind
that buffets the planet's magnetic field
causing it to generate the current for an aurora.
The solar wind is the Sun's electrical current sheet
which completes a circuit following the magnetic field lines down to the planet's ionosphere.
The article says,
"...scientists think one possibility is an orbiting planet or moon
interacting with the brown dwarf's magnetic field,
such as what happens between Jupiter and its moon Io."
But such complicated ad-hockery is a hallmark of a failed model.
The aurora and strong magnetic field are to be expected
because brown dwarf stars are lit directly by their electrical connection to the galaxy.
They are not sharing a bright star circuit like that of the Sun.
In the solar system, a brown dwarf's power supply is cut off
and the remnant becomes a gas giant.
The phys.org report ends with,
"The Very Large Array observations provided
both the first radio detection and the first measurement
of the magnetic field of a possible planetary mass object beyond our Solar System.
Such a strong magnetic field
'presents huge challenges to our understanding of the dynamo mechanism
that produces the magnetic fields in brown dwarfs and exoplanets
and helps drive the auroras we see',
said Gregg Hallinan, of Caltech."
The real challenge is not to understand the imaginary dynamo mechanism
to explain cosmic magnetic fields
but to pay proper attention to plasma cosmologists
who have a successful and predictive cosmology
that explains the electrical formation and rotation of spiral galaxies
and their ordered magnetic fields
without requiring any dark matter fudge.
Then the greater challenge is to consider an alternative to the belief
in the isolated-thermonuclear- campfire-in-the-sky model of stars
by examining the results of the SAFIRE electric model of stars
as they are published.
The evidence favors the proposition that it is institutionalized science that is lost.
The dogma that electricity exists in space but doesn't do anything
has blinded astrophysicists for a century
because the belief was established while plasma physics was in its infancy.
Jacques Barzun in his book ― Science: The Glorious Entertainment
called specialism
"...an arbitrary and purely social evil,
which is not recognized for the crabbed guild spirit that it is,
and few are bold enough to say that carving out a small domain and exhausting its soil
affords as much chance for protected irresponsibility as for scientific thoroughness."
While the evil of specialism inhibits interdisciplinary scholarship,
astrophysicists see nothing to apologize for in their avoidance of plasma cosmology.
They are lost
and as Hannes Alfvén predicted in 1970,
headed for a crisis.
What a waste!