The Electric Universe
is an amazing story
and it's my view that humanity, each
of us, operates according to a story
and sometimes we're so attached to those
stories that we'll go to war over it.
Now the EU story is in my view
an interdisciplinary story
which touches everyone
at some point.
In fact, the Electric Universe Conferences
have shown that we can draw people
from all disciplines and all
walks of life and inspire them
because it is an inspiring story and
it got its start from my inspiration.
The inspiration came
from Velikovsky.
That's not to say that everything
that Velikovsky wrote was correct
but he, on certain techniques, this
forensic technique of looking at
so-called unreliable witnesses, the
witnesses of the ancient past,
you can actually draw from that evidence
a picture of what was happening
and then you are faced with the
problem of trying to explain it.
And my role in all of this has been to
look at the evidence that was amassed
and then try and explain it.
And that has meant dumping a
lot of the cherished beliefs,
the story that I was
brought up with.
 
Okay.
Complexity theory says that you can
start with a set of simple rules
and repeat those rules,
generation after generation,
and within a very short time the complexity
that arises from those simple rules
can be quite amazing.
But the other interesting
thing about complexity theory
it says that you
can't work backwards
to deduce what those simple
rules were in the beginning.
Unfortunately the story that we
live by, the Big Bang cosmology,
treats the complexity
that we find now
by introducing new forces and
new particles, new entities
at every turn in an effort to
try and match the observations.
The Electric Universe operates by trying to
imagine what those original simple rules were
and thus the result
of that has been
a synthesis which allows us to get a
grasp on how the universe really works
in an electrical sense.
It's very simple, you could begin to
teach it to primary school students
and certainly college students
would grab it easily.
But the other part of it is that
it's not only interdisciplinary
but it shows how
we're all connected
and I think this is the
big story for the future,
is this connectedness instead
of the divisions that occur.
This has been, as I've discovered,
as you get to a certain age
you look back over your
career and you join the dots
and I've been
amazed to find that
I actually began this journey around
the age of 5 or 6 at primary school.
The...
In fact, I think I'll
start at that point.
Go back to my primary school.
So this is my story.
I was born in Melbourne,
Australia in 1942,
so in the 40's I was at primary school
in an outer suburb of Melbourne.
The surroundings there were not
the, not what you'd call middle class.
We didn't have much, my father
was invalided after the war
and so we were
living on a pension
but in those days that didn't seem
to matter, everyone was more or less
doing the best they
could after the war.
I had a favourite uncle who
was a commando in New Guinea
and he introduced
me to the telescope,
he used to show me the moon through
the, his army field telescope.
He was also a very creative guy
and he made a beautiful, beautifully
constructed crystal set, which he gave me.
So this introduced me to radio.
I ended up making crystal sets to order for
all the kids at school who wanted one.
The other thing that he introduced
me to was reading the encyclopedia
and so I had the habit of
going to school memorizing,
having memorized all these facts
and made drawings of eclipsing
binaries and that sort of stuff
and boring the kids in my
class with my discoveries.
Somebody who made an impression on
me too in those, later on in school
was Sir Fred Hoyle or just
plain Fred at that stage
with his wide-ranging ideas and the
fact that he didn't like the Big Bang,
I've got a little quote
there from his book,
"The big bang ideas seemed to me to be
unsatisfactory even before detailed examination
showed that it leads to
serious difficulties."
When I got to high school, it was
about halfway through high school,
my father brought home from the
military hospital a red-covered book
'Worlds in Collision'
by Immanuel Velikovsky
and he said, now you
might have interest in astronomy,
I think you'll be... you
will find this interesting.
It wasn't just interesting.
I'd never read anything
like it before!
And I think, when you consider that it was a
best-seller for many months running in 1950,
that many other people
thought the same thing.
It drew together evidence which
showed that the ancient skies
were quite different to
the ones we see now!
And that was inspiring.
It gave me another
idea to work with.
My first thought was
well, surely all my teachers can't
have been wrong for all this time
so I questioned people and
when I went to university
I went to the physics department
and this is the entrance to the
Melbourne University Physics Department
and embossed in the
limestone above the doorway
are the words ― School
of Natural Philosophy.
Well my view was that at university
any question could be asked,
nothing was taboo and that you
could expect a reasonable answer
or at least a statement
that you don't know.
That's not what I got.
I found either avoidance of answering
the question or outright hostility
and that really surprised
me and disappointed me.
So any... I stopped asking
questions about Velikovsky
but I decided that as a
science undergraduate
I would also read books from the
anthropology section of the library
and in doing so I felt
even more strongly
that Velikovsky had
made a case to answer
because I was reading books
that he had not referred to
and yet the story that he had
pieced together left off the pages.
Myths from the South Sea Islanders
and middle India places like that.
So I felt that this dismissal of Velikovsky
at the university was unwarranted
and ill-advised since I felt
he'd provided good evidence
that the solar system had
changed within human memory.
So I was working on my slides the
other night and lo and behold
there was an advertisement that came
through from the National University.
I come from Canberra, that's the
national capital in Australia.
And what it said was that
professor Lawrence Krauss
presents the greatest
story ever told so far.
Now I've witnessed Lawrence
Krauss speaking to the experts,
the astrophysicists at the National
University's Research School of Astrophysics,
I'm in the great position of being
only 10 to 15 minutes drive
from the top of Mount Stromlo, the observatory
and where they hold these meetings.
So I've seen him in action.
That's his book 'A
Universe From Nothing',
the very title makes
no sense whatsoever.
The introduction, this
is yet to happen
so I may actually attend
this when I go home.
The introduction is by Nobel
laureate professor Brian Schmidt
I have...
We actually had a set-to in the
national newspaper a few years ago.
An amicable one and I tried to organize
a meeting with him to have coffee.
This is before he got
the Nobel Prize.
Also I should mention that Brian
Schmidt is the Nobel Prize winner
who was involved in devising
another entity, dark energy,
for the accelerated expansion of the universe
or at least that's their interpretation.
I quote from the blurb that
goes with this advertisement
and this is ironic,
"The real story of the universe is
much more interesting and exciting
than the unsubstantiated and bland
myth pervaded by the ancients."
I could hardly believe
my luck when I saw this.
And it's this kind of dismissal
of any kind of history.
The idea that science has reached some kind
of pinnacle and you only have to deal with
research over the last few
years to do good research
is completely wrong!
It's my experience that in
order to find the answers
you have to go back and look at
the historical controversies
that were, that raged often
for decades or more
and look at how it was resolved.
And usually it was on the basis of who
was the most powerful politically
or somewhere in the power
structure in science
or it was just the case
of a show of hands.
And as they say, science isn't
a democracy or the scien...
the science that we accept should
not be but on the basis of a vote.
"Professor Lawrence Krauss describes
the remarkable scientific story
that has led to the greatest intellectual
edifice ever created by humans,
the Standard Model."
The strange thing is that we hear these
mantras delivered by experts on television
with no thought to the fact
that there are so many problems
that are unresolved
in the Standard Model
but these are glossed over as if
somehow we've almost got the answers.
I think the thing about this is
what I'm saying was reinforced
that this is all about stories.
We need a better story!
Big Bang cosmology, when
you look at the history,
sprang from mathematics, pure
mathematics and religious beliefs.
So the Big Bang is a myth!
Once upon a time long long
ago there was nothing,
which exploded.
So here we have nothing
doing something.
In contrast, the Electric Universe began
by analyzing global cosmic myths
and this is the inspiration
that Velikovsky
passed on to those who
were inspired at the time
and for myself I'm just
grateful that I had the
doggedness to keep
pursuing it all my life.
And as a result of the
interdisciplinary nature
and the number of scholars
from all different fields,
it's become an astonishing story that
shows our real place in the universe,
so far.
This is an example of the problem you have
when your story differs from someone else's.
Here we have Steve Crothers,
another Australian by the way,
who has presented at one of
our EU conferences recently
and I believe also at the NPA.
And he attended last month
a meeting in Russia,
as you can see the the kind of titles
there, and he was an early speaker
so what he had to say should have been
quite relevant to everything that followed.
It was "Flaws in Black Hole
theory and General Relativity."
Now he has explained this
to a general audience
in the Electric Universe
and they all got it,
you don't need to know advanced mathematics
to be able to see the flaws in the thinking
that go into black hole
theory and general relativity.
And I recommend following
him up on the web
if you would like to get
a hold of his papers.
This is his comments
after the event,
"I spoke at a conference
in Protvino, Russia.
I made it so simple"
and this is what
he's very good at
"that all understood and
they were very displeased.
During question time,
they went on the attack
but could offer no counter arguments and
instead tried to evade the issues."
This is exactly the kind of thing
that I discovered at university.
"Others told me" and get this
"that I should not criticize if I did
not offer an alternative theory."
That's just crazy, I mean
science is about testing
and if you get
disconfirming evidence
then that should be a spur to more
inventive ideas and an advance in science.
The idea that you have to
have an alternative theory
to replace one that you're
discrediting is nonsense.
"Nobody would talk
to me afterwards."
"So what did they collectively
decide to do in the end?
Pretend that nothing has
changed and go on regardless."
The following couple of days were
about black holes, the Big Bang
and everything that he
had just discredited.
Business as usual.
And one of the people who
were inspired by Velikovsky,
and in turn inspired me
since I was looking for answers
to how all of the things
that Velikovsky had described
could have happened,
is Ralph Juergens.
And I saw him in action
at a conference in 1974,
that was my first
real contact with him
but everything he wrote I devoured because
he was a very thorough researcher
and his insights, I thought, were
almost as amazing as Velikovsky's.
Since then some
things we now know,
In fact at the time the neutrino
account was also a problem
and it continued to be
a problem for decades
until somebody managed to find some
kind of story to cover the problem.
The solar wind acceleration
still remains a mystery.
The super hot corona
is still a mystery
although many people think
they have a solution.
Solar activity cycles,
still a mystery.
The solar convection has been
found to be practically absent.
And this is supposed to drive everything
that we see going on above the Sun.
And the Heliospheric boundary,
the interface between the solar
system and interstellar space
has also defied all expectations
and this has been good for me
because I've been describing
what I felt would be found out
there and so far it matches.
This is the time that
I met Velikovsky.
It was the first international conference
on the recent history of the solar system.
Now according to astronomers, of course,
there is no such thing as a recent history
especially not within mankind's
term on this planet.
That's a photo I took of Velikovsky
from the front of the hall
but you get an idea of
the audience there.
He was able to draw quite a
crowd from around the world.
Of course his challenge to
the mainstream was that,
as he said in the opening pages
of his book 'Worlds in Collision',
if Newton's laws are sacrosanct
this book is a heresy
and the response of the professional
astronomers at the time
was to ignore the gauntlet
that he'd thrown down
and just say Newton's
laws are sacrosanct
and just, you can
ignore the rest.
What we now think we know is that
our solar system appears to be weird
when compared to planetary
systems around nearby stars.
The Uranus and Neptune could not
have formed where we see them.
So now you'll see papers
appearing frequently
talking about
rearrangement of orbits,
the possibility of an extra gas
giant having been present initially
which then somehow managed to
push two of the other gas giants
which became Uranus and Neptune
further out into the solar system.
And also when we look
out at the exoplanets,
they appear to be impossible
according to the standard theory
of how our solar
system was formed.
So there's a severe problem in
even explaining why we're here.
Now the organizers of that
conference appear on this page.
On the right is Steven Talbott,
that's Dave's younger brother.
It was he who I wrote to and
he was the main correspondent
that got me to the conference.
He invited me to come over.
It was there also that
I met Dave Talbott.
At the time neither of us
knew what the other was up to
and in fact I'm not sure that
we knew what we were up to.
But we...
It turns out that we'd
both been inspired
by a short paper that
Velikovsky had written
about the idea, the
outrageous idea
that Saturn featured as a
Sun in early human memory
and that idea to me was
the genesis of the idea
that the solar system
has not only changed
but it's actually a
work in progress,
it had formed by the capture
of other objects.
I was an avid reader, of course,
of all the Pensée Journals,
they were extremely
well produced,
and that was the vehicle that got me to
the U.S. to Canada for this meeting.
Then it was 20 years later.
I had David's book
'The Saturn Myth'
and a friend of mine
said, "I'd like a copy"
and I said, well I'll see
if I can contact David.
When I rang David it was just
serendipitous that it was the year that
he had organized an international
conference in Portland, Oregon
and after I inquired
about the book,
he said, have you got anything you'd
like to present at this conference
that I'm about to put on?
And I said - Yes I have!
And so I was invited
to that conference.
And it was there that the
collaboration began.
There was another scientist who
was involved with Ralph Juergens,
towards the end of Ralph's life.
He was an associate professor at the
University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.
Dr. Earl Milton, his main
training was in spectroscopy.
He came to Australia and
stayed with our family.
His family and he joined us at the time
that Halley's Comet was in the sky.
He felt that the southern skies
were the best place to view it.
He wrote at one point,
"What goes on inside stars
is a sort of fantasy
which we all subscribe to because none of
us have seen what happens inside stars.
All we can observe is the radiation
that emerges from the stars' surfaces,
and what happens to the atmosphere
transmitting that radiation."
And being a spectroscopist, the next
statement is of significance
for the Electric Universe
model of the Sun.
"The major solar spectroscopic identifications
represent much more dense materials
than implied by the defined
density of the Sun."
It implies that what's inside the
Sun is not what we think it is.
He was also well aware of
the problems that we faced.
"The conspiracy of silence
which was imposed
by powerful scientists in
1950 upon Velikovsky's work
remains essentially intact today
in the halls of academia."
That was in 1983 when he
and I were both in London.
Nothing's changed!
I had the privilege in 1979, that's five
years after the conference, in Canada,
to be in Washington, here, working for the
Australian government for a few weeks
and I rang Velikovsky at his
home and mentioned the fact that
we'd met at the conference and
would it be okay if I visited.
He and his wife graciously took me, my wife
and three daughters in for the afternoon
and my main question to him was,
it centered around
this problem of
what don't we understand about
gravity and Newton's law?
Because this was critical.
His view was that there was electromagnetism
somehow involved in the process.
So (he) gave me this small monograph
which was published in 1946,
called 'Cosmos Without
Gravitation'.
Now the title is a bit misleading
because gravity exists, of course,
and I think it's useful to
maintain the distinction
between gravity and the other
forms of the electric force,
that is magnetism.
But in that book he gave a clue.
"...in the theory
presented here,
this attraction is not due to 'inherent
gravitational' properties of mass,
but instead to the well-known
electrical properties of attraction.
Two dipoles arrange themselves
so that the attraction is stronger
than their mutual repulsion."
Now chemists know this because all
of the visible world that we live in
depends upon this dipole
to dipole interaction.
And when I went back I thought,
I'll have a look at the difference
between the chemical textbooks and
the physics textbooks to see
just how close the chemists were to the
answer rather than the physicists.
That was striking!
The physics textbook had only a cursory
derivation of the forces between dipoles,
the chemical one went
into great detail.
You know, charged particle
to induced electric dipole,
induced electric dipole to induced
electric dipole and so on.
It was about 6 or 7
different versions,
each one had a slightly different
equation to describe it.
And it's significant, I think, that certain
well-known scientists in the past,
Fritz London was one of them,
suggested that gravity might be the
same kind of intermolecular force,
the thing that holds the solids
and the liquids and so on
together that gives us
the world we exist in.
But this was the clue.
It had something to do
with electric dipoles
which, in neutral
matter, still attract.
So two years later, in 1981 there was a tiny
advertisement in the Scientific American
for the Journal of
Classical Physics.
The first article was
by Ralph Sansbury.
It turns out he was the
originator of this journal
and its title was
Electron Structure.
And I thought well this is, if we're
talking about electric dipoles
and the electron has structure,
this is the first place to look.
And so I contacted Ralph and we
actually met in London, shortly after.
Now I enjoyed Ralph's
derivation because it is simple,
it's a case of a
repeated pattern,
you take the atomic structure
and you suggest that perhaps
subatomic particles have
the similar structure
and because atoms can be distorted
to form electric dipoles
that means that subatomic particles can
also be distorted to form subatomic dipoles
and the resulting
attraction between them,
because of the difference
in size which is colossal,
gives you the reason why
gravity is 10 to the 40 times
less stronger than the
naked electric force.
Anyway, he derived Ampere's
law from this simple model,
I thought that was
an excellent start.
Well, one of the requirements of his
theory is that the electron stability
requires that all of these particles
communicate amongst one another near-instantly,
otherwise you cannot hold
the electron together,
it's not coherent.
And that speed of the
electric force is colossal.
This type of mechanism
explains gravity simply
if you involve all
particles in this process.
It explains Mach's principle,
this idea that all the matter
in the universe is connected,
only here you have all the matter in
the galaxy is connected in real time.
And it discards all of these virtual
particles, the wave/particle duality.
The Speed of Gravity
Tom van Flandern who attended
many of our early meetings,
he showed simply
that the speed of gravity exceeds 20
billion times the speed of light.
Now that was a lower limit.
If that weren't so,
a torque would fling the planets out of the
solar system in a few thousand years.
It's because we would not be
orbiting where the Sun is
but where it appears to be in
the sky and the result is that
the forces coming from an angle which
tends to act like a slingshot.
So his view and his
simple observation
fits Sansbury's electrical
model of gravity
and he argued also, a
separate argument,
for the origin of comets and
asteroids from an exploding planet.
He felt they had a common
origin in some event.
The year 2000, it was
about September I think,
we had a very significant meeting
of the Electric Universe proponents
in Portland, Oregon
and at that meeting there was
the astronomer Halton Arp,
there was Tony Peratt, the
leading plasma physicist,
Tom Van Flandern was there
and we had scholars involved
in the mythological aspects,
and professor Don Scott.
So we had two former Sagnac Award
winners at that meeting,
this is the kind of meeting it
was, it was really outstanding.
But the most significant thing
there was that Tony Peratt,
who worked at the Los Alamos labs, had
access to information that no one else did
and that was the form
of plasma instabilities
when you create the most powerful electrical
discharges that man can do on Earth.
And when you do that, you
get the kind of forms
like that one seen in
purple on the right.
And because the plasma is
semi-transparent, certain aspects of it,
the edges, become
strongly visible.
In fact, sometimes the light from this can
be so intense it can actually be lethal,
it ranges up into the X-rays.
Just faintly behind that, you
see some of the weird figures
that have (been) carved on
rocks around the world.
The Australian Aborigines have their
own Lightning Man and Wandjina figure
which they describe in ways which
is associated with lightning
and with power flowing
down from heaven
and they're very careful to choose their
words when they say these things.
So all of this fitted
with the Saturn model.
And of course the Saturn model
when, on first appearances
is so outrageous that
it's easy to dismiss it
but here we had hard evidence,
very hard it was carved into rock,
that ancient man had
witnessed about 80
or most of the 84 different
forms of this instability.
Of course Halton Arp
as the key figure,
because he has dealt with the grand
scale of the universe, the cosmology.
He provided the physical link between high-redshift
quasars and low-redshift active galaxies
which shows that redshift is
largely an intrinsic factor
in a celestial object like a
galaxy or a baby galaxy quasar.
And this gets rid of all of the problems
which are ignored by astronomers
with things having to be
ultra bright, ultra massive
and all this kind of thing if you
place them at the end of the universe.
But if you bring them
up close with their,
the things that they're
associated with,
they become normal brightness, normal
sizes and everything appears okay.
It's, I find it quite odd that
astronomers can make these leaps
and just say well, it must be huge,
it must be really ultra bright,
we don't understand how you can generate
that much energy to see it at that distance.
One of our key members in the
early years was Amy Acheson
and she used this little
cartoon on the Left
'Objects in the mirror are closer than
they appear'. And this is the case.
In other words the universe, the visible
universe is much smaller than we think.
It also appears to be relatively static,
according to Halton Arp's reconstruction.
This means there
was no Big Bang.
The universe is of unknown
age and extent.
We can say nothing about origins.
And really, it is
very arrogant of us
to think that in the last microsecond
of our scientific endeavor
that we've uncovered the
secrets of the universe.
This is something that Halton Arp said to
those of us that he was associating with,
he's always had a keen regard for amateurs
and those who are prepared to ask questions.
I hold him in the highest regard.
"The greatest part of the
progress independent researchers
have made in the past
decades, in my opinion,
is to break free of the observationally disproved
dogma of curved space-time, dark matter,
Big Bang, no primary reference frame
and no faster than light information."
All of these things I agree with.
If you get his book 'Seeing Red',
he, in the final pages of the book ticks
all the boxes for the Electric Universe.
We arrived almost at the same place coming
from slightly different directions.
The Electric Universe story adopts
successful plasma cosmology
and this is one of the other aspects
of specialization in science today.
The IEEE recognizes plasma cosmology as
a discipline and publishes papers on it,
astronomers do not attend the meetings
and they don't read the papers
except for one,
Gerrit Verschuur, the
radio astronomer.
He was at one of the
meetings with Tony Peratt
and we were there as well
because I have had some papers
published in the IEEE plasma journal
and they were excited over the fact that
Gerrit Verschuur had found the radio signatures
that were expected from this
image on the left of the screen.
This is a picture of the
Birkeland current filaments
that flow between
galaxies in deep space.
They were in what's called dark mode
so that you can't actually see them
but the radio astronomers can pick
them up with their radio telescopes.
Now you will see, just down
from the top of the slide,
there's a small insert saying
"Cross-section of Galactic
'Birkeland Current' Filament Pairs".
When two of these Birkeland filaments come
close together, they begin to interact.
And draw closer together
and early in the interaction you will see
the two filmers draw in towards one another,
there's a long-range attraction and
a short-range repulsion going on.
On the right is a picture
of Markarian 739
and here we're looking
down the barrel of
two of those Birkeland current
filaments coming together
and beginning to
form a spiral galaxy.
Simple explanation.
What does NASA say?
"Galaxy Boasts Two
Monster Black Holes"
This is, just goes to
show how disconnected
and unpredictive and useless
modern cosmology is.
The EU story explains the mass and energy
focus at galactic centers very simply.
The current flowing along the spiral
arms of a galaxy in, towards the center
must go somewhere.
And in the laboratory, when you pour
electrical energy into a discharge
which converges on a point,
the result is what's
called the plasmoid,
a dense plasma focus.
And that's the shape that it
takes, it's like a doughnut
where with complicated paths that
the electric current flows in,
but down the central core all of
those filaments are closest together.
So what happens is, as the energy
is more and more concentrated,
there comes a point when the particles
there start colliding more and more.
And at that point, you have neutrons
being formed, which can escape,
and these plasma
focus plasmoids are
the most copious source of
neutrons known in the laboratory.
And they also then decay into
protons and electrons, of course.
Now, the electrons tend to get trapped
for longer than the heavier particles
so the protons escape and the things
that are formed along these huge jets
are electron deficient.
They are the quasars.
Now, the fact that they're electron
deficient means that their polarization
will be lower than another
galaxy or its parent
and the result of that is that the masses
of the subatomic particles involved lower,
their redshift is higher and the energy
involved is less so they're faint.
All of this fits together in a
simple electrical explanation,
you do not need a black hole.
The mass there is simply
there because E = mc²,
if you keep pouring more and more
'E' in, you'll get more and more 'm'
and these plasmoids
are extremely small.
I would say, in the center of our galaxy
it's less than the size of the solar system
which is unresolvable
at that distance.
There are no black holes as
Steven has shown theoretically.
The Electric Universe story
explains the electrical formation
of stars and planetary systems.
In the laboratory in
these intense discharges,
what happens is that the
discharge breaks up into blobs,
often seven I think or nine,
and after the discharge fades
they scatter like buckshot, it was
the term that Tony Peratt used.
And what do we find in deep space?
When you look through the dust,
using an infrared telescope,
you find the stars are arranged
in these, along these filaments,
they're the Birkeland
current filaments.
What's more, it's been discovered
that these embryonic stars flicker.
And they flicker far too rapidly
for matter just falling in
and causing radiation
to outbursts.
So that's a problem for any theory
of stellar formation using gravity.
But of course, electrical
circuits often flicker.
So these stars are flickering as
electrically as they accumulate matter.
Professor Don Scott and I are currently
working on what is the exact circuit
because this is
fairly complicated.
This is the circuit connecting
a star to the galaxy.
This one is lit up and is
known as a planetary nebula
and you can see the wonderful complexity
in there but we're beginning to unravel it,
we're also trying an
experiment to test it.
If it's confirmed, I think
that's worth a Nobel Prize.
Not for dark energy or the other, cosmic
microwave background and all sort of thing.
So this is the circuit that connects the
star and this is what we're working on now.
This is the reason why all of
the models of the, what would be found
at the boundary of the Sun's
electrical influence, the Heliosphere,
has not been met.
None of the models worked.
But the one that looks at it from
this electrical circuit point of view,
which I've tried to do,
still matches what's being found.
I think this is a great confirmation
for the electrical model of stars.
Here's Don and Dave did
a great job yesterday
of showing some of the technical
aspects of Don's work.
It shows the transistor,
a style of interface between the
Sun and what's above the Sun
and it explains it all
simply in electrical terms.
Simplicity is the key.
Now one of the most amazing
parts of the story
revolves around the Saturn myth,
David's work, Ev Cochrane, Dwardu
Cardona have all worked on this,
it's been a life's
work for them as well.
The big problem was how on earth do you
stack planets pole to pole in a line?
There's no known stable orbital
system that will do that.
I thought about that for decades
and finally, piece by piece, I
managed to sort out the puzzle,
I think...
What I've shown here, coming
down from the top left,
is a red dwarf which has entered
the Sun's electrical environment.
Two heliospheres have touched
and then, when that happens they
see each other electrically.
Now the Sun is treated in the Electric
Universe as an anode, a positively charged body.
A red dwarf is a much less
positively charged body,
it's glowing dimly.
So when it enters
the Sun's domain
it becomes a comet,
it switches from being
an anode to a cathode
and cometary appearance is
characteristic of a comet.
Also their electrical
forces start to apply
in the form of modification of the mass
of the objects in that brown dwarf system.
The change is such that it
tends to capture the objects.
It draws the star away
from its satellites
so they spiral down and trail
behind the main object.
It's a bit like comet Shoemaker-Levy
9 when it disintegrated.
They didn't just form a cloud of
particles; they formed a chain, a line.
So what the very high energy
discharges that we have examined
and got confirmation
from Tony Peratt,
I feel, were when we were sitting
in the tail of the comet
that was one huge
electrical discharge.
And it wasn't just
us that was in it
but the other satellites of Proto-Saturn
we call it, the brown dwarf.
And it's interesting that in recent
years astronomers themselves
have come to the conclusion that the most
likely place for life in the universe
is as a satellite
of a brown dwarf.
There's much more to that in
the Electric Universe model
than there is in the Standard Model,
which makes it even more likely.
The other thing that you
have to worry about is,
when you've captured all of these bodies
it must be total chaos in the solar system.
All of the orbits have to be
adjusted to achieve stability.
And that's when I came up with this idea
that all planets in the solar system
act as secondary electrodes
in the Sun's discharge.
They are less positive than the
Sun, they are therefore cathodes.
They emit electrons.
In the case where they're all drawn
into the current sheet of the Sun,
and we know that each of the planets
has what's called a magneto-tail,
a cometary-like tail behind it, and
there are charged particles involved
because of the magnetic fields.
The charge transfer appears
to work in such a way
that when two bodies
come towards one another,
the inner one tends to
move in towards the Sun
and the outer one tends to
move away from the Sun
so they space themselves until the electrical
interaction ceases or almost ceases.
In the case of Mars, you still have the things
like the ionospheric blue clearing occurring
when Mars ends up in
opposition to the Earth.
You also get those
global dust storms.
They're all explained
electrically,
and it's this electrical transfer between
the inner planet and the outer planet
that spaces them and
stabilizes the system.
So that's my contribution - Electrically
Modified Newtonian Dynamics - I call it.
It's very simple, the equations are
just involved high school physics.
It explains the electrical capture, the
avoidance and rapid orbit stabilization.
It explains the transition of the captured
system from a brown dwarf to a gas giant.
It's no longer a star,
and it has to adjust to its
electrical environment,
and that may involve flaring,
violent outbursts just like comets,
they tend to disintegrate
to some extent.
So some of the bodies in the solar
system, one in particular, Venus,
appears to have been a part of
that electrical readjustment.
Of course, a recent National Geographic
has 'Our Wild Wild Solar System'
and here we have an object colliding
with the Earth to form the Moon.
This kind of thing in the Electric
Universe is most unlikely to happen
because long before the two planets get
anywhere near that kind of contact,
they will separate electrically.
Dwardu Cardona is one of the key
authors of the Proto-Saturnian story
and has traced back the history as far
as, further than anyone else, I think.
And his talk at the Electric
Universe conference was
'Strangers in a Foreign
Stellar System'
and his books are a
mine of information.
The Electric Universe story, as Steve
Smith very ably demonstrated yesterday,
can explain the origin of these
vast electrical scars on Mars
because it was heavily involved
in all of the activity.
Mars, the God of War. He actually
suffered worse than anyone else.
The Electric Universe
story pieces together
the dramatic recent story of
the Earth and its inhabitants,
our catastrophic past and the fact that
we have not yet come to terms with it.
And our popular astronomy gives a
distorted view of the universe,
the modern vision evokes a sense
of lonely bodies in space,
isolated galaxies, self-immolating stars
drifting like dust moats in the blackness
and the clockwork
solitude of planets.
It's a hopeless cosmology.
In challenging this idea, the Electric
Universe emphasizes connectivity.
The electric force influences
matter at all levels,
from subatomic particles
to galactic clusters,
leaving little room for the
disconnected fragments of modern theory.
So it's all about connectedness.
The electric force
operates in real time,
all matter is connected resonantly by the
electric force to produce quantum effects.
As soon as you get rid of
the speed of light delay
you can begin to understand
the weirdness of,
or the so called, weird
aspects of quantum theory.
Nuclear forces, magnetism and gravity are
all manifestations of a single force
and these simple concepts are essential
for coherence on all scales,
from the galactic to the solar system to
life on Earth and down to atoms themselves.
It is based on inspiration,
interdisciplinary inspiration,
this is really interdisciplinary.
A lot of people pay, sort
of, lip service to it
but this, the EU uses it
as a basis, a foundation.
It's not consensus in a specialized
theoretical field that ignores,
and I quote from the earlier
advertisement for Lawrence Krauss,
"unsubstantiated and bland myths
pervaded by the ancients."
The Electric Universe story was
inspired initially by Velikovsky
and the inspiration continues.
No one assumes, in this group,
that we have all the answers
and we are keen for anyone else, who
feels they can lead in some area
because it's a huge picture that
we're building, are welcome.
I feel...
One of my dreams is to see a
reconstruction of the human story
going back to the earliest times,
the view of creation.
What were these creation
stories really about?
Because obviously no one was around
when the universe was created,
these are stories about the
creation of the world we see today
from something that
was different before.
If we could just have an IMAX
movie, I think people would get it.
You wouldn't have
to labor the point,
the symbolism and everything
comes down to today
and that symbolism is
striking, it's undeniable
and I think people even at a
subconscious level would connect with it.
And once we've done that,
Velikovsky felt that the most important
message is that unless we understand our past
we cannot heal from the
wounds of facing doomsday.
I can only, I can't even imagine what
it must have been like in those days
to feel that the world
was just about to end.
We suppress that memory
and until we can learn what it was that the
ancients were desperately trying to tell us
with their monuments,
their strange artwork
and their strange stories of gods
and things going on in the sky,
until we understand
that, we cannot heal.
Velikovsky felt that was the most
important message he had for mankind
because otherwise,
unless we can heal,
we cannot begin to behave as perfectly
rational denizens of the universe
and our future on this
planet is questionable.
Thank you.
[Applause]
