A Beginner's View of Our Electric Universe - New

Recommendations

Info

5 | The work of the honourable but ignored Any introduction to the Electric Universe model could not adequately be attempted without mentioning the people whose work has contributed to the theories now fundamental to that model. Some of them are big names in the history of science, others are less well known and some continue to expand and refine that model through their contributions today. The reaction by many in mainstream astro-science to this body of people and their work has been unfortunate, where some have been ignored and ridiculed and a few even intellectually attacked on occasion. This chapter documents the main characters whose work I have come across and the contributions they have made to the evolution of the EU model. It also puts the final elements of our build-up in place before we move on to look at the basic theories of the EU model. As people you may already be aware of, I will first mention Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, William Herschel, Johannes Kepler, Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubble, Fred Hoyle and Steven Hawking. These are just a few of those whose work in astro-science and mathematics has contributed to the theories that lie behind the current standard model. I have respect for every one of them and believe they did good honest work by contributing as best they could to the advancement of science. However, I have taken particular note that in the opinion of many experts, some of the hard work and creative ideas of these people have either turned out to be wrong turns in themselves or have been distorted through work carried out by others in their own pursuit of achievement. I now mention the names of James Clerk Maxwell, Nicola Tesla, Kristian Birkeland, Irving Langmuir, Hannes Alfven, Immanuel Velikovsky, Charles Bruce, Ralph Juergens, Earl Milton, Halton Arp, Anthony Peratt, David Talbott, Wallace Thornhill and Donald Scott. I would not be surprised to find that most of these names are unfamiliar. This chapter expands, to a degree, on the significant work that some of these people have done and how outcomes from that work now support the EU model. For now, I will say that with similar honest endeavour, dedication and creative thinking, these people have contributed significantly to research and discovery within electrical and magnetic science, plasma physics, cosmology and astronomy. You will note that mathematics is not included here. This is because it is viewed by supporters of the EU model as mainly a subordinate proving tool to observation and experimentation and to the conclusions drawn from those activities. This stands in contrast to the way today’s astro-science has come to view the subject of theoretical mathematics. Instead of using it as a proving tool for obtained results, they have for many decades given it a leading role, an attitude that has encouraged an environment where the formulation and acceptance of impossible theories is commonplace. The status that mathematics has in the astro-science world is an evolved one that has in many ways turned out to be truly damaging. It seems that too much belief has been inappropriately placed in theoretical mathematics as a first-stop-shop for ideas and theories. As a result, not only have serious fundamental questions arisen about the direction and conclusions reached by today’s astro-science, the big picture seems also to have become overly 1 | The work of the honourable but ignored
complicated and opaque to common sense. Things are further complicated because in their attempts at proving the relevance of this confusing situation, even more of their imaginative mathematical constructs have been added to it. This has resulted in a confusion of incompatible assumptions that have taken up the thinking time of good scientists - all to no end other than to cause division and build walls between these people and their work. Many of the standard model theories that have emerged from this situation have been shown to be impossible to work in the real world or to test in laboratories using proven methods - yet still they have been accepted and linger on, just like a bad smell, and astro-science has not been called to account for this state of affairs. In short, mathematics is regarded differently between the mainstream astro-science and EU communities. One side puts theoretical mathematics first and builds its theories from it, and the other side places it secondary to logic, common sense and actual results of observation and experimentation. Here, it would not be a big challenge to guess correctly the nail on which I suggest, a fair minded person’s coat should hang! The division that this difference in approach highlights is further added to by the current lack of cooperation within and around science disciplines in general. There is no doubt that scientists working on their own have the chance to achieve good things, but the quality of their work and their rate of output would improve if they were open and confident enough to discuss what they are doing with colleagues who could help. Although a logical thought to have, this turns out to be naïve, for an open attitude to work is rarely practiced by today’s science research communities. Instead, we have significant isolationism between disciplines, usually for commercial patent protection, egoism and project funding (survival) reasons. Ideally, of course, this should not be the case. If there is even a chance for good cross-discipline cooperation to take science forward, then this is what should be done. In recent years, many ‘maverick scientists’ have deliberately kept themselves away from being involved with the mainstream attitudes I have described here. These are mostly scientists who talk and cooperate across their disciplines and who are therefore seen as part of what has been rediscovered from earlier times as the ‘interdisciplinary approach to science’. Hopefully, this is the way research will again be done in the future. It is interesting to note that in the very early days of research, unlike today, scientists were able to choose to work on whatever took their fancy. This was a situation without any undue external pressures from the early science institutions, universities and whatever commercial interests existed at the time. There was a genuine sense of proper intellectual decorum around this, because these people truly believed that what they were doing was for the overall betterment of science and mankind and that the sharing of information would help work towards that goal. There are examples of early scientists making extraordinary personal efforts and sacrifices to prove their thoughts and ideas correct, according to their own interpretation of the rules of rigorous scientific research. The dedication displayed by many was often admirable, and in some areas at least, it has remained this way with the more honourable types. We now look at some of the individuals from history and from today to whom we should be beholden, in my opinion, in terms of the advancement of general science and for the original contributions they made and which some still make to what has become the Electric Universe model. 2 | The work of the honourable but ignored
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 40 and 41:
make. People are not born to be sci
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?