A Beginner's View of Our Electric Universe - New

Recommendations

Info

make. People are not born to be scientists, they choose that vocation because of their environment and education as a profession that comes with responsibilities to science itself and to everyone. By not challenging things where it is right to do so, scientists are serving an already damaged system and they are intelligent enough to know better. No matter the reasons here to ponder, the major variable that clearly remains is that of basic moral judgement. It is an uncomfortable thought to consider that it is quite possible for conformists who are both weak of character and yet arrogant within these definitions to be the ones who, by saying and doing the right thing at the right time, can rise to positions of influence within the astro-science discipline. Is there not then a danger that this type of person will go on to dictate the way ahead for others and for astro-science research overall? It is a fact that, until a major shake-up comes along, where people find out they are only numbers within a weak system, conformity will be rewarded by those systems. Sadly, a mixture of these unprofessional attitudes has already created a mess for the up-coming generation of young and enthusiastic scientists to deal with and to sort out. This is my analysis of what is likely going on within astro-science; a situation that is perpetuating the confusion and lack of clarity we are currently experiencing. In total contrast to this, we must remember there are scientists for whom a focus on the right things for the right reasons is the natural way they operate. These are people whose lives and careers are in balance. I am confident in suggesting that the majority of scientists are or want to be like this. We also need to remember, however, that the up-and-coming generation of young scientists may find themselves under pressure from nonperformers above and around them to conform to situations that stifle their own independent thinking. For these good young folk to get ahead, especially in the current intimidating world of established astro-science research, they could find themselves strongly pressured to comply with mainstream views, with no obvious option to do otherwise. What a waste! The big questions that arise from this are, “How is this array of unfortunate attitudes affecting people right now?” and “Why has science gone along with this situation for so long?” To begin exploring some of this and to bring into better focus the story of our universe, let us again go back a hundred years or so, to the time when there seems to have been a split in the world of scientific research, one that was fundamental to the explanation of why we now have unproven and currently un-provable theories being supported as scientific fact. This split came about when research developed to the point where there were some scientists choosing to work on gravitational theories and others choosing to work on electrical/plasma theories. Things had previously been good because there had been open interdisciplinary cooperation between all areas of research - in fact, science had previously been known as ‘Natural Philosophy’. These two quite different fields went their separate ways during the early decades of the 1900s. Gravitational research, based as it was around the respected work of Newton and Einstein, forged ahead with the support of the reputations of Einstein’s eminent followers who had developed an understanding of his theories for their own purposes. As a side-effect of the limelight directed at Einstein’s work and that of other gravity supporters, the discipline of electrical/plasma research found itself in the shadows. It fell behind with its body of scientific support and the involvement of motivated graduate students to become an area that seemed mainly to serve the needs of the 2 | The thinking that got us here
commercial world of power generation, distribution and associated manufacturing applications. The result was that the mystery-riddled world of Einstein’s gravitational theories became adopted ‘as was’ by astro-science and thereafter supported in significant and high-profile ways. Success was thereafter guaranteed for those who got involved, for it all seemed to make sense. This meant that the less understood discipline of electrical/plasma science had effectively been painted into an industrial/commercial corner, there to remain for many decades. We will take another step back to the early 1900s to pour a little more concrete around the base of this story. This was when the respected astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington carried out a telescope observation experiment from an island off the west coast of Africa. The ‘successful result’ of this experiment seemed to prove Einstein’s theory which said that light would be bent by the influence of gravity. A successful result was interpreted when Eddington observed light from a star that was actually situated behind the Sun to his direct line of sight. The Sun’s gravity was therefore judged to have bent the star’s light around it. Eddington’s experiment © author This finding delivered a great amount of credibility for Einstein and his work. It seemed that at last, something practical from real-life observation supported the major claim about gravity in Einstein’s general theory of relativity. In addition to this, and just as important to our story here, Eddington was about to come up with a theory that would be taken as answering the important question of how stars work; our own Sun included. The story previously discussed was that stars were burning balls of gas which, due to an internal pressure being created through some unknown mechanism, were able to produce an outwardly-acting force equal in all directions. This force was viewed as a balancing force, adequate enough to counteract the inward pull of the star’s own gravity. This was the partially complete model adopted as the explanation for how all stars were able to maintain their ball-like structure. However, the internal mechanism that allowed this process to occur was the big problem to be explained, but as far as it went, this description was good enough to kick things off. Eddington’s refinement was to add a ‘nuclear explanation’ to explain how energy was being generated at the Sun’s core. Conveniently, his contribution to star operation theory came out around the same time that discoveries were being made in the realms of atomic structure and nuclear fusion and fission. Fission reaction (atoms being broken apart and lots of energy being released as a result) is what takes place in the cores of our current nuclear reactors. Fusion reaction (atoms being forced together and lots of energy being released as a result) is what Eddington claimed was going on in the core of our Sun, and by association, all other energy-producing stars. 30 | The thinking that got us here Star Sun Light bent by the Sun’s gravity Earth
Page 2 and 3: A Beginner’s View of Our Electric
Page 4 and 5: Contents Dedication Acknowledgement
Page 6 and 7: science book, this book will requir
Page 8 and 9: Dedication For my wife Nora, my swe
Page 10 and 11: Gerard, your eye for detail has bee
Page 12 and 13: Foreword I continue to be amazed at
Page 14 and 15: And so why should the theories behi
Page 16 and 17: After having spent a good deal of t
Page 18 and 19: In terms of what I felt I could do
Page 20 and 21: In addition, my desire is to by-pas
Page 22 and 23: Each and every one of these things
Page 24 and 25: He believed that by including dark
Page 26 and 27: They are further thought of as star
Page 28 and 29: White Dwarfs, Neutron Stars, Pulsar
Page 30 and 31: Redshift [1-10] , in the context of
Page 32 and 33: We have all seen Craters [1-13] in
Page 34 and 35: Despite this being the case it seem
Page 36 and 37: There have of course been very impo
Page 38 and 39: Having reached this point with grav
Page 42 and 43: The process of nuclear fusion is no
Page 44 and 45: We looked earlier at dark energy as
Page 46 and 47: This is just not possible to reconc
Page 48 and 49: to the effects of assumed, colossal
Page 50 and 51: They have therefore failed on every
Page 52 and 53: Comets were first described in 1950
Page 54 and 55: “If the Earth’s orbit were repr
Page 56 and 57: What if this powerful process based
Page 58 and 59: One such very expensive experiment
Page 60 and 61: … Young stars have been found in
Page 62 and 63: In the normal state where everythin
Page 64 and 65: We will go back to our model of a s
Page 66 and 67: The four fundamental states of matt
Page 68 and 69: on how much of an ‘encouraging fo
Page 70 and 71: Dark Mode: (Low Energy) • • •
Page 72 and 73: If a hydrogen atom has its single e
Page 74 and 75: 63 | Some basic theory that will he
Page 76 and 77: On the domestic scene, we often fin
Page 78 and 79: We experience two types of magnetis
Page 80 and 81: Getting back to electric currents a
Page 82 and 83: Here, the often powerful radiation
Page 84 and 85: This twisted form will come as no s
Page 86 and 87: These are all examples that involve
Page 88 and 89: • • • • • • • • Rad
Page 90 and 91:
Helium is a gas with 2 protons and
Page 92 and 93:
5 | The work of the honourable but
Page 94 and 95:
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790) was
Page 96 and 97:
Birkeland’s name will be remember
Page 98 and 99:
Here are some of Alfvén’s other
Page 100 and 101:
Ralph E Juergens (1924 - 1979) [5-6
Page 102 and 103:
This has been a look back into hist
Page 104 and 105:
Donald E Scott. [5-11] is the third
Page 106 and 107:
Many of these ‘star objects’ ap
Page 108 and 109:
These variables are: regions of vas
Page 110 and 111:
If a straight split of a star is ac
Page 112 and 113:
There is one other item to highligh
Page 114 and 115:
Producing planets and moons: I ment
Page 116 and 117:
Here, it has been suggested that ju
Page 118 and 119:
Given what has been said so far, go
Page 120 and 121:
As development progressed in radio
Page 122 and 123:
The way we do this today, however,
Page 124 and 125:
Note that Nova is the name given to
Page 126 and 127:
Is this a pipe-dream? I do not know
Page 128 and 129:
Here is what this experiment infers
Page 130 and 131:
This time, however, the types of ma
Page 132 and 133:
Visually, it appears to us that bot
Page 134 and 135:
that have no other significant valu
Page 136 and 137:
In real life, a capacitor has two m
Page 138 and 139:
The Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud
Page 140 and 141:
As mentioned previously, comet Holm
Page 142 and 143:
There are many other visual observa
Page 144 and 145:
Astro-scientists interpret these pl
Page 146 and 147:
Asteroids and comets are fundamenta
Page 148 and 149:
When meteoroids become meteors as t
Page 150 and 151:
Geology thoughts: I have looked clo
Page 152 and 153:
Just before the copper projectile s
Page 154 and 155:
It seems once again that what was k
Page 156 and 157:
We can closely inspect many craters
Page 158 and 159:
Consider the ‘doctored’ image o
Page 160 and 161:
The central peaks often seen inside
Page 162 and 163:
Vast areas of the hemispheres of pl
Page 164 and 165:
How is it that the small bodies of
Page 166 and 167:
Monument Valley Arizona - Source Wi
Page 168 and 169:
The similarities between this chasm
Page 170 and 171:
‘As seen in numerous counterparts
Page 172 and 173:
It may therefore be NASA and ESA th
Page 174 and 175:
These gullies have an almost errati
Page 176 and 177:
Flat Top Mesa It may just be me, bu
Page 178 and 179:
In terms of the job I originally se
Page 180 and 181:
Given that these electrical process
Page 182 and 183:
We need to find the more worthy sci
Page 184 and 185:
important reason behind me writing
Page 186 and 187:
And finally ... Why should any of t
Page 188 and 189:
[1-13] Wikipedia article - “Impac
Page 190 and 191:
Chapter Five References: [5-1] Kris
Page 192 and 193:
[6-23] Wal Thornhill, “Mystery of
Page 194 and 195:
[6-5 ] TPOD - “Meteor Crater in A
show all

A Beginner's View of Our Electric Universe - New

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?