Hello everyone! So, my title. My talk
is titled; Creator's Second Hand but I
probably wouldn't be able to explain
this title, not until the very end of my
talk so I ask you to wait a little bit for
it.
Now I'm gonna give you some
introduction on what I'm going to talk
about and that will be, first of all I'm
gonna give some general questions,
general points about electricity and
gravity in space and what we can
probably explain with the help of
electromagnetism. And then I'm gonna give
you a couple of theories by Pavel
Mantashyan shine on alternative to dark
matter and formation of the solar system.
And then I'm gonna give you a promised
conclusion about the title of my talk
and what is what, what's the point of my
talking in general, OK. So now, since I've
known, since I've mentioned Pavel Mantashyan,
I'm gonna say a couple of words
about him. He's an inventor and author of
more than 60 inventions, four books and 30
articles, but since they are in Russian, I
don't give any names here. It's actually
that we've never met in person. It's that I
read his books and I really like them
and since I've already, I was
into Electric Universe stuff at that
time, we've agreed that
I will come here and give a talk because
Pavel Mantashyan cannot give a talk
in English, so it ended up like that.
Okay now, we've never met in person as I
mentioned because he lives in Russia but
I live in Belarus and maybe some of you
might wonder where it is; so I'm going to show you.
Here's a map of Europe with my country.
And it just so happens that Immanuel
Velikovsky was born in Belarus; he was
born in Vitebsk, a couple of hundred
kilometers from where I was born and
where I live in Minsk. And OK, so that's
kind of where it all started right. And
so at the right you can see our
national flag and I wouldn't put it here
if it weren't for this vertical band
that you can see on the left.
This is a really archaic piece of
ornament and I might be a bit paranoid
but it looks kinda like Peratt's Squatterman 
or something like that, OK. So I'll
just give this bait so maybe you would
come and search more info about my
country. OK, since I've shown you where
Belarus is, I'm gonna ask you where we are
in terms of theories and ideas and
hypotheses, and of course if you look at
modern astrophysics you would find that
it is pretty much dominated by gravity.
OK, so we kind of have this huge thing of
gravity and only a thin layer of
everything else on the top of it, OK. So
just like Don Scott have quoted that
"If there is electromagnetism, well, it
probably doesn't do anything." OK, it's just a
decoration of sorts. And so, there is the
principle of charge neutrality of cosmic
objects whether it is explicitly stated
or implicitly, kind of being there,
OK, which states that there are no
electric currents there, there is no
net charge separation etc etc. But when
people try to
kind of use this worldview to describe the
real data that we have from observations,
they have kind of, they get kind of odd
results and in order to fit those
results into the hypotheses and theories;
they have to invent some sort of
crutches or even peglegs maybe. Those
artificial things like dark matter and
dark energy and many, many other things.
Well, I'm gonna talk about dark matter
a little bit later but I just want to note
about the dark energy that when people
say that universe is expanding and the
space is expanding, in my opinion this is
logically incoherent statements. Well if
you say that the ether is expanding, well
that's ok with me. I find it a good idea
but the universe cannot expand. If you
try to define all the notions really
carefully, you would find that this is a logically incoherent
statement. But if you want to discuss
this please contact me, I don't have
much time to discuss it here, ok? So, since
we kinda know where we are now, where can
we go from here, OK.
So we can we can suggest or hypothesize
that there is charge separation and
electric currents in space and maybe
that would allow us to throw out all of
these crutches and go along on our own
feet, OK. So maybe we should hypothesize
that electromagnetism plays a major role
alongside gravity in the universe. And so
the central hypothesis of the proposed
theory by Pavel Mantshyan, and I'm
going to reinstate it a little bit later,
is that electric charges do exist in
space and he says that they exist
actually on stars, OK. And now some
general points that I've promised on
electromagnetism. I've here listed
the field of applications of
electromagnetism, of possible
applications. Now magnetic fields in
space, I'm pretty sure that you are aware
that almost every object in the universe
posesses at least some sort of magnetic
field associated with it whether it is an
induced magnetic field like. for example.
on Venus or it is an intrinsic magnetic field like in the bar magnets or on Earth etc etc
And if you take a look at
Maxwell's equations you would find that
the magnetic field actually arises
wherever we have a changing electric
field and the changing electric field
means that we have a motion of the
source of electric field and the source
of electric field are charged particles
and when we move charged particles we
get electric currents. So, there's a
pretty much straight forward connection
between the electric currents and the
magnetic fields. So if we acknowledge the
existence of electric currents thus we
can explain the existence of magnetic
fields. It's as simple as that, OK.
Now solar wind acceleration. I'm
pretty sure that you're aware that the
fast solar wind that's coming out of a
coronal holes is getting accelerated
like from 3 solar radii to up to 10
solar radii, from 350
to up to 800 kilometers per
second and slow solar wind also gets an
acceleration of around 100 km/s. And so,
how can we explain this acceleration?
Well, the most simple idea that can be
probably out there is to suppose that
really the Sun possesses some electric
charge, and this electric charge just
accelerates these photons, excuse me,
protons of the solar wind outwards
by simple electrostatics, OK. Of course in
real in real life so to speak there would
be complications with certain plasma
effects like Debye screening and maybe
some other things but
I think it's a good start to start from
here, OK. Now sunspots formation, I noted
here that there's a theory by Pavel
Manteshyan about how vortices form in
general.
Unfortunately I cannot give many
details on this but just in a couple of
words, the theory states,
well basically, that the motion of charged
particles in a magnetic field creates
the rotation of these particles due to
Lorentz force. And if we have a big
quantity of such particles, they start
building up angular momentum in this
field and thus we, due to fluid dynamics,
the whole system starts to rotate. And
that's how that's how we get
these vortices. Like, for example,
tornadoes or cyclones or anti-cyclones
on Earth or eddies in the ocean or
gyros, and that's basically what is
a sunspot from the Manteshyan's
theory. And, of course, Ben Davidson
has his theory of earth-spots, and this is
pretty much it in my opinion, OK. So in
sunspots the charged particles on the
surface of the Sun move in the magnetic
field of the Sun and build up this
angular momentum and create this vortex, the
circular current essentially, and this
current, because the particles are
charged, creates a magnetic field of its
own, and we get the essentially the
sunspot, OK. So that's one of the ways of
explaining it.
Now lensing, I'm pretty sure that all of you
have heard about the gravitational
lensing, right, but you might ask what's so
gravitational about it, OK.
So maybe there is another
explanations. I think at the previous EU
conference there was
Edward Dowdye talking about
this about the refraction of light in
plasma actually not due to
gravitation, and I think that this is a
good idea that plasma really can refract
the light, in principle, in theory.
I'm not saying that it really is doing
that but we might suppose that it is doing
that and so that this interstellar plasma
and plasma around galaxies might actually
refract the light and act as a lens. But
more than that, I want to add here that
we have an electro-optical effects like
Pockles effect and Kerr effect, they
actually amplify the refractive index of
matter due to electricity. So if we have
an electric field applied to this plasma,
the refractive index might might be
bigger than in a sort of an ambient plasma,
and we might get stronger lensing. This
is also an interesting possibility in my
opinion. OK, solar system formation. I'm
gonna talk about this later and
differential rotation too. Galactic
rotation curves, that's where the dark matter comes in, OK.
Now, on the left you can see this
picture where we have the velocities of
stars or molecular clouds or whatever
else plotted versus the
distance from the center of galaxy, OK.
And so we can notice that somewhere around
the middle of a spiral arm or maybe
somewhere closer to the core, we get this
discrepancy between the measured
velocity and the velocity that we can
calculate through Newtonian gravity and
Keplerian motion, OK. And if we look at
the bottom to the right, we can see that
the measured velocities are getting much,
much higher than what we can calculate
and on the bottom of the right you can
see the
simplified form of the Second Newton's
Law. And what it states basically is that
the square of the velocity is
proportional to force, OK. And what does
that mean if we have an
excess velocity, then we should have some
excess force that we cannot account for,
OK. And so people are thinking: "Okay, if we
have only gravitational force in space
that means that we have some extra
gravitation we cannot account for. And
since we all love our gravitational
constant and want to keep it constant,
probably right, then it it means that we
have extra matter, extra mass that we we
we don't see. And that's how the dark
matter was invented. But maybe there is
another explanation to it. Let's remember
what I've said about the magnetic fields,
everything possesses some sort of
magnetic field. So, let's take a look at
magnetic fields of galaxies. Now on the
left you can see a view of a really over-
simplified view of a spiral galaxy
as viewed from, for example, the northern
side and the southern side and thus the
plane of picture coincides with the
plane of galaxy, OK. And these arrows,
they depict the direction of the
magnetic fields. And we have this picture
that, for example, on the northern side of
the spiral arm the fields are directed to
the core, from the ends of the spiral
arms, OK. And on the south, we get the
opposite direction. And so, in general, it
creates the picture of sort of wrapping
around, sort of Birkeland current but
with the other geometry, OK. And on the
right we can see another component of
the magnetic field of galaxy; it is
a dipolar type field.
L is the distance from the plane of
galaxies. So kind of imagine that the
vertical line is a plane of galaxy and if we were moving northwards where L increases, the
field starts rising and then it starts
falling off like a field of a bar magnet.
And to the southern side we get the same
picture but the sign is inverted, OK. So
these are kind of basic components of
the magnetic fields of galaxies. And of
course, the real magnetic field of galaxy
looks much more complex, and I'm gonna
show it to you how it should look like,
OK. This is the data from ESA Planck
mission, of course, what we see here is
the direction of polarization of
electromagnetic radiation which
supposedly coincides with the magnetic
field lines and the color depicts the
intensity of light which is proportional
to the density of matter, OK. So we really
can see that we have these magnetic
field lines going along the spiral arms
in the plane of galaxy, and we also
have this dome-shaped bar magnet-type
field around it
to the both sides of of the plane of
galaxies, OK. So how can we create such
magnetic field? I told you that the
electric current is the most simple way
of creating magnetic field, OK. So here's
this hypothesis again reinstated: the
stars have an electric charge, OK. And let's
let's take a look and maybe we can
create these magnetic fields with this
hypothesis, OK. So, here on the left we
again see one of the spiral arms with a
piece of a core of galaxy from both
sides and on the right we can see a
slice of this spiral arm along this red
curved line so it's kind of we're
observing the array of stars moving
along their orbits kind of in parallel but
they move on us or from us that really doesn't
matter
OK. So let's suppose that these stars
have positive electric charge. This is to
this pretty much arbitrary thing but we
should at least make some supposition
about it.
OK, let's suppose it's positive and the
stars move outwards from us into the
plane of picture. That would mean that
they create the circular magnetic field
that is actually clockwise directed,
right. Each star creates a magnetic field
of its own. But if we sum the magnetic
fields from each star, we would get this
wavy pattern, OK, going for example at the
northern side it goes to the right and at
the southern side to the left, OK.
So we get really this picture of
magnetic field lines going in one
direction at the northern side and
returning at the southern side. So we get
this sort of wrapping around thing, OK. I
think this is pretty pretty simple and
pretty elegant but let's think about
this. Let's think how would these fields act
on the stars themselves because the
stars as electric currents should, should
be I mean the magnetic field should act
on these stars because the stars are
electric currents, OK, if they move. And so
we can apply the left hand rule, for
example, of four fingers shows the
direction of the motion of the positive
charge, which is in the plane of picture
and magnetic field lines enter the palm
of our hand then the thumb would show
us the direction of the Lorentz force that
is acting on the northern stars. It
would be directed southwards and for the
stars on the southern side, it would be
directed northwards. So what we get is
that spiral arm gets squeezed. Again, the
same type of behavior as with Birkeland
current filaments, OK. But the
geometry is different. And in my opinion,
this is one of the explanations of why
the galaxies are so flat. Why do
they have this pancake shaped form, OK.
But let's think about another thing. How
would these occurrence, i mean the stars,
interact with each other?
The parallel currents, as we know, they
attract; this is called the Ampere's law.
And this is actually how the
definition of Ampere as a unit of
electric current is defined through this
attraction, OK. So this would be of course
the different component of the magnetic
field, a vertical one but still they would
attract and how would this attraction
look like in the middle of the spiral
arm, in radial terms? In the middle of a
spiral arm, we would get pretty much the
same quantity of stars closer to the
core and closer to the rim so we'd be attracted
in both sides with pretty much the same
force and it would compensate, OK. But when
we are moving closer to the rim outwards
from the core, the quantity of stars
closer to the core would increase and the
quantity of stars closer to the rim
would decrease, and we would have this
excess attraction to the core. And here
on the left, for example, you can see
again this is a really simplified
version of this graph, this is an
Ampere's force, R is the difference from
the distance from the core, excuse me,
and at some distance you can see that the force is 0
but if we we are getting closer to the
rim we're getting attracted to the core
and this kind of may give us really this
unaccounted for
force which people explain with dark
matter, OK. And on the right we can see
the sum of this force with the
gravitational force one over R
squared. It gets a little rise on the
at the end of the spiral arm, OK. And that
can, in principle, this might explain the
excess force that we need, OK. So that's
that's that would mean that we don't
need dark matter actually, OK. So, this is
one theory and another theory, of course
there are questions because for example
closer to the core we would have the
force that drags us to the rim but I'll
leave this questions this this is sort
of a second order problem.  I'm
getting the the principal theory and I
think it really might account for what
we observe.
Now about the solar system formation,
there are of course a lot of models
a lot of theories but they all face the
same difficulty, which is explaining the
angular momentum of the system.
Why is it rotating? And the angular
momentum is a sort of a measure of this
rotation. If we look at the expression, it
says that we should take a sum of all
the particles that we have and we should
take a product of their masses, their
distances from the axis of rotation and
their velocities. So the more massive
particles we have, the farther out they
are from the axis of rotation and the
faster they go around, the more angular
momentum we would have, OK. And the solar
system actually possesses quite a big
angular momentum. Of course, everything is
relative here but the important point
here is that the angular momentum should
conserve in the closed system. So if we
had, for example, a nebula that did not
rotate and it for example would condense
by gravitation it wouldn't start rotate
on its own, it would need some external
driver to make it to spin it up, OK. In
the solar system the angular momentum is
mostly due to Jupiter. And if we take all
of the giant planets, they have like 99%
of the angular momentum. So
as I've said, we need to have some
external driver and pretty much in
gravitational paradigm the only
driver is probably the passing star. So
maybe if some object have passed nearby
the solar system it may have spun it up
like wind blowing to the windmill makes
it wheel spin ok. But is there another
explanation?
Mantashyan proposes actually another
explanation and again centers on the Lorentz
force. So if we had an external magnetic
field, like for example a galactic
magnetic field, and if we had charged
particles if the planets and the Sun
were charged they actually might get
this angular momentum due to interaction
with the external magnetic field of
galaxy and here's another hypothesis
explicitly stated that during its
formation the Solar System was exposed
to a powerful galactic magnetic field,
which was perpendicular to the ecliptic
plane. Now I must note here that we don't
actually need to have a an ecliptic
plane here, what we need is only the
charged Sun that is moving in this
magnetic field and sort of I'll try to
show later how the charged Sun moving in
a magnetic field can get its rotation.
That's when you get the equatorial plane
and the ecliptic plane would pretty much
coincide with the equatorial plane. But
in this model the planets are being
born by the Sun itself, they're being
ejected out of the Sun. So let's suppose
that young active and electrically
charged Sun ejected some plasma in space
filled with galactic magnetic field.
Those would probably be like a today's
coronal mass ejections but much more
massive and basically much more
intense and those were the proto-planets
ejected out of the Sun. So I asked a
question, what conditions should be met
for the plasma to turn into a
real planet? And the answer is that we
should eject from the equatorial plane.
Because, well, think about the
launch of the artificial satellites from
Earth, we need to launch them from the
equator if we need to get the same orbital
direction like the spin of the earth, OK.
Because that's that's how earth helps us
with its own rotation, it gives us
additional velocity, additional energy
and additional angular momentum too and
thus the external magnetic field that
I've mentioned would provide the most
angular momentum. And that's what I'm
gonna illustrate right now. Now on the
left we can see a view from the side
of the Sun ejecting some piece of plasma
somewhere a bit northwards, OK. B is the
magnetic field lines of galaxy, I mean the
lines of the magnetic field of galaxy,
v is the velocity of this piece of plasma
and the Lorentz force would be directed
into the plane of picture if we suppose
the positive charge. So the Lorentz force
would be equal to QvB sin alpha. Now
Q is the charge of this ball of plasma, v is
velocity as I've said, and B is the magnetic field
strength. Now, alpha is the angle
between the velocity vector and the vector
of the magnetic field. So, if we look at
it, when will the Lorentz force be
maximal? It will be maximal when we have
the sin alpha equals to unit. That would be
when the alpha, when the angle would be
perpendicular, when the velocity would be
perpendicular to the magnetic field and
that would be at the ecliptic plane in
the equatorial plane of the Sun, OK. Why
would we need this Lorentz force? Again,
think about how the satellites are launched.
They do not fly straight up, OK.
They fly straight up to a certain
height and then they start tilting the
rocket and kind of fly fly up and then
they're flying sideways so they get this
circular orbit, OK. Because if you fly
straight up, what would happen is that
upon the return to the Earth at the
perigee, you might be too close to Earth.
You might actually fall down to the Earth, OK. 
So that's what
we need, this kind of sideways force that
draws us to the side. And here the
Lorentz force plays the role of such
force, and the Lorentz force provides us
the circular orbits, OK. So when we are
launched on the right, you can see the
view from the North Pole of the Sun. Here is
this piece of plasma being launched and
then it goes sideways due to the Lorentz
force, OK. And kind of upon the next
approach to the Sun, it wouldn't be too
close to the Sun and would, might survive
actually. And and the Lorentz force would
help to build up angular momentum
of the system and make its orbit to
expand its orbit make it more circular
overtime, OK. So I promise to explain how
the spin actually, is being acquired so the
same story would be the same story would
actually be for the Sun and the planets so I'm
gonna talk only about the Sun today
right now. And on the right you can see a
schematic of the Sun. We have the rigid
solid body core presumably, OK. By by this
point, I'm pretty sure that you've
noticed that I'm a little obsessed with
red color. So we have this rigid core,
then we have this liquid layer on top of
it if we are to believe Pierre-Marie Robitaille, then
we have a charged surface layer where the
charge of the Sun is situated, OK. So when
the thing moves in the magnetic field
of galaxy, what happens is that the
charged particles again they start
rotating due to Lorentz force and this
rotation builds up angular momentum and
due to liquid dynamics the whole
charged surface layer starts rotating, OK.
And what that would mean that would mean
that due to friction, the liquid layer
would start rotating, OK. And then the
core would start rotating
and we will get the the magnetic field
eventually, OK. So that's how in this
theory the rotation
was acquired by the Sun and by the
planet's later. OK. And I've promised to
explain how the differential rotation
might appear. Now if you take a look at
this horizontal lines in the liquid
layer I've drawn there, them there for a reason.
You might notice that in the
equatorial region actually the thickness
of this liquid layer is the smallest and
as we get closer to the poles it
increases and so it would be kind of easier for
this liquid layer to rotate in the
equatorial region and it might get a
bigger velocity there. And thus we can in
principle explain the differential
rotation of the Sun and giant planets, OK.
So, what factors would be at play
in this rotation? The rotation would be the
more intense, the more electric charge
we've had, OK. So we need to be big and
carry enough electric charge; that's
first of all. And and then the charge
might be diminished by the solar wind or
see another CME's or anything like that, OK.
So we need to be as far from the Sun
as possible to avoid diminishing of, the
blowing off of charge due to the solar
wind from this charged surface layer, OK.
So the farther out we are from the Sun
and the bigger we are, the more
rotation we would get, OK. So that would
mean that the giant planets should spin
the fastest in the solar system. And
guess what, we get actually that's what
we observe. Now Jupiter, take a look at
this, this is the biggest planet and has
the lowest spin period and the
smallest which is somewhat ridiculous,
isn't it? So the Jupiter was really big,
it had a lot of electric charge and it's
relatively far out, OK. Saturn was a bit
smaller but it was also farther out, so
that this relative solar wind density
was smaller at the orbit of Saturn and is
to this day. And the same story with Uranus and
Neptune pretty much. And with the other planets. Now
of course there are
concerns about Venus and stuff but I'm
not gonna talk about this right now. So
now, what about these young planets? They
are still hot in plasma but they are
already rotating and have their magnetic
fields. Why wouldn't they eject some
piece of plasma of their own? That might
be possible and actually Mantashyan
thinks that it's what what was
really happening, OK. And so that's how
the satellites might have been formed. They might have been rejected out of the
planets and gain their angular momentum
and their circular orbits in the
magnetic field of the mother planet, so
to speak, OK.
So what characteristics should
they possess for us to say that really
they were born in such a way?
Well first of all, they should have low
eccentricity excuse me low-inclinations
so they should be pretty much in
the equatorial plane of the mother
planet because I've shown you before why
would that be. And also they should have
low eccentricities because Lorentz force
gives us circular orbits and also they
should have the same direction of
rotation because they were launched from
the planet itself. Now I mean the same as
the spin of the planet. Now I'm pretty sure that you
know that there are a lot of satellites
that do not possess these
characteristics, OK. So how could they form? Well,
standard theory says that they are
probably the captured bodies.
Well, it might be that but in Mantashyan's
theory another explanation is possible,
is that these satellites actually are
kind of a brothers of the the planet. So
they might have been born out of the
same ejection that gave birth to the
the planet itself. Maybe there was not a
uniform piece of plasma going around but
maybe there was some additional splashes
or something like that or maybe there
were several pieces of plasma, some of
them
merged and some of them, was small but
they've somehow managed to survive and
they could have formed all of these
so-called irregular satellites, OK. This
is a possibility. Now, let's take a look
at some examples. Jupiter, pretty much all
of the inner satellites including the
Galilean, the most massive ones, have a
low inclination and low eccentricities.
So in this theory, they were actually
born by Jupiter itself, OK. And the outer
moons like starting from 9th, they have a
pretty high inclinations and
eccentricities, and starting from 16th,
they have retrograde orbits so they orbit
in the opposite direction, OK.
So we get this picture, so they are
probably either the brothers of Jupiter or
they are captured bodies, OK. Now if we're
talking Velikovsky by the way I just wanna
note that maybe if Venus was actually born
out of Jupiter maybe it was from the big
red spot where it was born, OK. But
this is just a thought.
Now Saturn, the same story as with Jupiter
but the Titan, of course, dominates the
whole system, and it has also a low
inclination, low eccentricity so it
probably was born from Saturn, OK. And the
first 24 moons, they too have low
inclination and low eccentricity, and the
outer moons mostly have retrograde
orbits, high very inclined and eccentric
orbits so they're probably either the
brothers of Saturn or
they were captured bodies. Now the same
story with Uranus but the important
exception is that the equatorial plane
of Uranus is very inclined. It's almost
perpendicular to the ecliptic so Mantashyan
thinks that what happened is that
when Uranus
had its spin and magnetic field its orbit,
I mean its spin access was inclined due
to some reason. I don't know what the
reason might be, maybe a collision maybe
something else, and that's when it
started to give birth to its satellites
that we observe today. Because the
inclinations are relative the modern
equatorial plane, which is highly
inclined, OK. So OK now what about Neptune,
we get this moon Triton which is really
big and it moves in a highly inclined and
retrograde orbit. So under this theory
probably was born out of the same
ejection so it's kind of a brother of
Neptune. The other moons possess kind of the
same qualities that are for the other
giant planets. Now important thing, Mars
and Earth, OK. Phobos and Deimos have
little inclination and little
eccentricity so they were probably born
out of Mars under this theory at least.
Of course there are other hypotheses. Now
the Moon, what's interesting, it has a
relatively high inclination, high
eccentricity so it couldn't have been
born out of the Earth probably. And it also has a
lot of mass, it's more than one percent
of mass of the Earth and it is a unique
case in in our system.  And as Mr.
Thornhill noted yesterday, I
think, that actually the Sun pulls the
Moon more than two times stronger than
the Earth pulls the Moon. So actually the Moon is going
around the Sun, it's not orbiting the
Earth.  The Moon is sort of a sister
planet for the Earth and the orbit of
the Moon you can see on the right
that's what the orbit of the Moon
might look like as you might think but
I've crossed it out because this is wrong.
The orbit of the Moon around the Sun is
elliptical, it never does these curls
around the Earth, OK. Its elliptical. Of
course it has little waves because of the
perturbations of the Earth but in general
it moves around the Sun not around Earth. So the
Moon is a quasi-satellite of Earth. And this
is one of the pieces of evidence for 
for this theory, I think. You can Google
what a quasi-satellite means and compare this to 
this elliptical orbit around the Sun, OK.
So I'm close to the end. The points in favor
of the proposed model is a relatively
high angular momentum that we can explain with
this external field, the existence of the
ecliptic plane, the circularity of orbits
due to the Lorentz force, the spin
characteristics of planets which are,
this is a really interesting point and
so the red colored ones they
actually cannot be explained
through only an accretion, OK. We have
some,
we should have something something else
to it. Of course, there are questions now,
where do these magnetic field go, how
strong it was, where did the charges go,
whether they just whithered away because of
the Sun or something else. There are a
lot of questions, I admit. And I think for example,
if we suppose that the magnetic field
suddenly changed or even depolarized to
the opposite, there might have been this
epic of instability and catastrophes
because the Lorentz force would change and
the orbits would suddenly change and
there might have been all of these
catastrophes with charge exchange and
electric discharges and everything else.
So this is kind of a point where we can
dock this into a more traditional
so-to-speak Electric Universe theories, OK.
Now, if we look at the Sun in a galaxy
what we can see, this is what
Mantashyan calls the Mathrushka model
or a Russian doll model you might call
it, OK.
The idea is that the
the satellites were once embedded in
planets and the planets were embedded in
the Sun and the Sun work was probably
embedded in the galactic core or something so
it might have been ejected from the
galactic core one day and the galactic
core might have been ejected from
somewhere else like a super cluster core
and it all happened in the magnetic
fields of larger and larger scale, OK.
So we get this really fractal structure of
things, kind of evolving and
differentiating on smaller and smaller
scale to get this Herbert Spencer type
evolution. And here
the Lorentz force plays the role of
universal transformer of this linear
motion into circular rotation. And in my
opinion, this is one of the explanations
for the ubiquitous character of the
circular rotation in our universe.
Because in the gravitational field alone you would have
an arbitrary eccentricity, you wouldn't
have exactly the circular orbits. We
don't have exactly the circular orbits
but they are too frequent in my opinion
to form by accident, OK.
So that, this is what I've promised to you
in order to understand the Universe we
need to observe the work of both hands
of the creator, the gravity and
electromagnetism. So if we focus on only
one of those, we lose perspective and kind
of perceive the world with only one eye
out of two that the nature gave us. So I
hope that it really explains the title
of my talk because we should have this
linear gravitational attraction and this
Lorentzian thing that gives us really all
those structures that we observe. OK, you
were a beautiful audience thank you for
your patience, thank you for your
attention.
