A Beginner's View of Our Electric Universe - New

Other surface features that must be mentioned are the long and deep gouges (rilles) that appear cut into planet
and moon surfaces. The EDM action that forms craters applies equally to the process of rille formation. The
difference is that instead of a discharge event being focussed on a single area, lateral surface motion of the
discharge event has to be considered as well. Mentioning rilles allows me to move on to the subject of ‘surface
scarring’ and the creation of other features on planets and moons [6-64] [6-65] [6-66] [6-67] [6-68] [6-69] .
Geology, surface scarring and other features: Most of the surface scarring and other natural and unnatural
geological features on Earth and other bodies are the result of plasma discharge events. This statement is
not one the public is likely to pay much attention to because we have traditionally taken the explanations
of geologists and other science discipline experts as being sound because they do come from ‘experts’, so
we just accept them as fact. Please think about this carefully for a minute. Earth scientists in general are not
specifically educated in astronomy and are likely to have precious little knowledge of electrical or plasma
science. Therefore as a basis on which to form their opinions, many of them rely unwaveringly on the traditional
geological theories passed down to them in the academic setting by their teachers. This means that in the
public arena as knowledgeable voices to be heeded, they feel within their professional and personal comfort
zones and believe that the understanding they have of our Earth, which extends of course to include other
bodies, is at best absolutely correct or at worst heading towards the truth. I intend no disrespect to the work and
dedication of these people but when certain antiquated geology theories are passed down through a comfortable
academic hierarchy to be used together with that discipline’s lack of off-planet experience, then it seems clear
that geologists and astro-geologists will prefer to explain things using a traditional toolbox that is actually not
as well populated as it might be and which applies mainly within Earth’s isolated biosphere.
To contrast this, when a broader modern view that includes the theories behind the EU model is adopted, then a
very different vista opens up for consideration. Of course geologists have a stake in defending the fundamental
theories to which their careers have been devoted; that is understandable. They also have every right to hold
opinions on anything they choose, just like the rest of us. However, it does seem a pity that as theories directly
applicable to their own discipline have made great strides, they have chosen to stand still and not consider an
update to their own. My view of this and other related things is not an academic one. I see it rather as one of
common sense based on a level of familiarity with the broad range of evidence available to all of us if we choose
to open our eyes and learn more. With an open mind, feet on the floor and with a modicum of scepticism, one
needs only to study some of the basics of geology and look at the compositions and formations of features
around us to become suspicious of the traditional explanations that movement of the Earth’s crust and water and
wind erosion alone have been responsible for them all. This thought brings to mind physical features such as the
Arizona Bluffs in the US where it is water and wind erosion that are said to have formed them. It is my now firm
belief in the ubiquity of powerful electrical forces that leads me to say I cannot accept this idea.
154 | The Electric Universe answers I see