mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================

_________________________________________________________________

John Theakston (11/7/02 7:54 pm) The Electric Universe

The Electric Universe Model (EUM) is based on an apparent fact that vast
amounts of Electrons are pouring in from interstellar space and powering
the Sun (and all other stars for that matter). Has this actually been
detected by spacecraft that study the Sun? ie. A.C.E. and Ulysses.
________________________________________________________________________

David E Davis SIS Council Member (15/7/02 8:25 am) The Electric Universe

This question gets asked a lot ;-)

I'm not really the man to give you an answer though..... Although re:
'vast amounts' - not sure what the required amount is, quantitatively, by
Electric Universe models......but I do seem to remember reading a Ralph
Jeurgens paper which just talked about "1 electron per cubic meter" or
sthg (which is sthg akin to one football in all of London)...... ....and
also, I think the electrons would come in at the poles, and spew out
equatorially along the ecliptic plane - so we wouldn't see them on
Earth...?

But I don't really know much about this....
_________________________________________________________________

Amy Acheson (6/8/02 4:24 pm) Reply Re: The Electric Universe

Hello,

I'm new to this forum (but not the discussion). Bottom line -- we don't (I
don't anyway) have a complete picture. We have models to try to explain
what we see, and since electricity in space has only recently become
confirmed, the models are at an early phase of understanding (the analogy
which jumps quickly to my mind is Galileo. Within a few days of his
discovery of Jupiter's moons, he understood how it supported a
heliocentric model of the solar system. But he refused to accept the
notion that the tides had anything to do with the moon. He thought that
they, too, were proof that the Earth moves -- causing the oceans to slosh
like bathtub water.)

That said, here's my understanding of what the electric Sun model has to
say about "currents measured in space": Jeurgens' estimate is based on
geometry. The electric field inside the Sun's magnetosphere is the same
for all distances, but since the geometry is spherical (or disk-shaped in
the ecliptic), the density of electrons would change as you move radially
outward or inward from the Sun.

Jeurgens' estimate (one electron drifting sunward per cubic meter) was at
the distance of the Earth's orbit, and I think it was a "minimum" number,
not an exact estimate. At the distance of the corona, the density of the
current becomes enough for a glow discharge (like you see in a neon
light), and at the distance of the photosphere it is dense enough for arc
discharges (like an arc welder.)

As far as electric currents are concerned, protons moving away from the
sun are the same thing as electrons moving toward the sun (electrical
engineers call it "drift", which isn't nearly as intentional-sounding a
term as current). spaceweather.com gives the daily measurement of protons
drifting outward, taken at the SOHO satellite about 1.5% closer to the Sun
than Earth's orbit. It's usually around 1-3 particles per cubic meter, or
of the same magnitude as Jeurgens' estimate.
_________________________________________________________________

John Theakston (11/8/02 7:19 pm) Reply The Electric Universe

Thankyou David, Amy, Simon and David again (?), for your replies. I have
done some research on the question as to whether any possible INFLOW of
electrons to the Sun have been detected and the short answer is NO...none
so far. Of course, the various spacecraft sent to examine the Sun have
measured plenty of OUTFLOW, including electrons, but to date as far as I
can determine, except for "anomolous cosmic rays", the possible influx of
any electrons to "Power the Sun" still remains "an enigma wrapped up in a
mystery"...apparently.

Thus it seems to some people "in the know" that the 'Electric Universe
Theory' (EUT) should be immediately abandoned in its entirety, based on
this evidential FACT (as one of my contacts has concluded...describing the
whole concept as "nonsense"). Additionally, as cited by another source,
the lack of x-rays in coronal holes on the Sun is yet another problem for
the EUT, not to mention a suitable and convincing mathematical model, (it
has always seemed rather "puzzling" to me, the apparent unerring trust and
reliance that astrophysicists and cosmologists claim in the validity of
their mathematical models. Everything must be mathematically explained.
Perhaps this is why they end up with black holes, neutron stars, missing
matter etc.).

Another prominent physicist described the EUT as being "bizarre" and then
followed up with a generous helping of ad hominem attacks aimed both at
the authors and supporters of the theory. This sort of childish behaviour
brings to mind a certain individual who presented Velikovsky as a "King of
Fools" back in 1978 (and who to date, still cannot explain why many of the
larger craters on the Moon have small craters impinged on their rims and
that this "anomaly" is never seen the other way round... not to mention
the consistent circularity of these craters...apparently being due to
"explosions on impact"?... no matter what trajectory the impactor arrives
at). . I can understand why certain prominent people in the field adopt
this type of response. Their dogma must not only be adhered to without
question, it must be believed too, for fear of retribution from their
mentors within their well established hierarchy. Any dissenters will
quickly be "unfrocked" with resultant retribution, disgrace and
estrangement.

But I am deviating.

In the EUT as I understand it, albeit briefly (because I am still studying
the concept), the Sun is essentially the anode located at the center of a
cathodeless discharge.

At first, I found this statement quite difficult to grasp and to
visualise, but the analogy of a fluorescent neon tube helped. I imagined
the Sun to be located at one end of a neon tube and called the anode,
while at the other end of the tube (or analogously, the limit of the Sun's
influence), is the cathode... similar to the "set-up" of a neon light. The
extent of the Sun's influence being at its heliopause is likened to a huge
bubble, or heliosphere, with a radius of up to120 AU's (Earth-Sun
distance). In the neon tube analogy, the tube itself represents the
heliosphere, but instead of being a straight piece of thin hollow glass,
it is actually a gigantic sphere or "bubble" ("virtual cathode" with the
Sun at the center) and with its complete outer skin being the cathode.
Within this bubble are located all the planets, comets and many other
objects which in the neon tube example, is known as the "postive column".
Outside of this bubble, the extreme outer atmosphere of the Sun meets with
interstellar space and as with all stars in the vicinity of our Sun, at
least as the theory describes, they are immersed within huge Birkelian
currents that pervade our particular area of the Galaxy's spiral arm (and
are responsible for the formation of these arms). So there is no shortage
of a source of power.

These giant galactic Birkelian currents ultimately provide the power to
our Sun and the stars, in the form of highly energetic electrons (mostly),
which impinge at the "cathodic drop" region or heliopause of our Sun. As
in a neon tube, the main "activity" occurs directly at the cathode and
anode ends...whereas the space in between or "positive column",
essentially maintains a steady state of ionisation and excitation within
this electric field (an equal number of postive and negative charges)
centered on the Sun (anode). Electrons (negatively charged), "drift"
toward the Sun (following initial acceleration at the heliopause), while
positive ions accelerate out from the Sun (Solar Wind) in order to
equalise with the much more highly charged interstellar medium. It is
perhaps this effect that is slowing down the Pioneer probes... their
negative charges are being pulled upon by the positive charge of the Sun.

Both the Sun and the interstellar medium are thus negatively charged, but
the Sun itself (within its "cavity"), is much less charged. Hence a
current will flow between the two charges with the Sun taking on a more
positive role and as a result, due to the difference in electrical
potential (roughly10 billion volts), the anode (Sun) will glow, which is
what we observe at the Corona (and by comparison on a much smaller scale,
the "corona effect" sometimes observed on highly charged electrical wiring
exposed to the atmosphere - that bluish glow around the wire). Below this
area, near to the "surface" (photosphere) of the Sun, an intense discharge
occurs in the form of an electric arc.

In the neon tube example, when power is applied, the tube becomes luminous
immediately and "glows" due to the excitation or ionisation of the
prescribed gas (called 'plasma') contained within the tube (ie. the
"positive column" area between the two ends). However, in the Sun's
positive column (heliosphere) the density of this "gas" is far too low to
excite a glow or "glow discharge" as such and as a result, the column
effectively disappears and the space in between remains dark This
constitutes a weak electric field. Thus within this low intensity positive
column and weak electric field, the density of electrons is extremely
small, but the field is nevertheless strong enough to allow an
imperceptable "drift" of electrons toward the Sun.

(I should add here that I may not be 100% correct in this explanation
because there are so many other factors to consider, but I think I have
the gist of the theory).

Perhaps then, this is why at the distances that the spacecraft are from
the Sun (returning to my original question), no INFLOW of electrons has
been detected at all. Also, with the spacecraft being immersed within the
OUTFLOW (or Solar Wind) emanating from the Sun, any possible detection of
inflowing electrons would be like trying to detect a "you know what" in a
thunderstorm! Over and above this, as far as I am aware, none of these
spacecraft were specifically designed to study/record any possible INFLOW
in the first place (even if it were possible). One cannot ask an
instrument to record phenomena outside of its design specifications.

I have only given a brief outline of what I understand might power the Sun
within the confines of the EUT (as previously mentioned and reiterated
here, there are many other factors such as sheaths, dark spaces,
electromagnetism etc to be considered), but the question is in itself,
what I regard as being fundamental to the whole idea of possible recent
global catastrophism and for the following reasons. If the Sun is indeed
electrically neutral (as we are told) and electricity, though present,
only plays a minor role in the functioning of the Sun and in fact no
currents flow in space at all, then all the other bodies within our Solar
System and elsewhere must also be intrinsically electrically neutral.

Further, if it is purely GRAVITY (whatever that is), that rules the
Universe then I can understand "EXTREME GRADUALISM" because the phenomenon
of gravity is anything up to forty powers of magnitude weaker than the
ELECTRIC FORCE (indeed, whatever that is too). Consequently, events such
as interplanetary bustlings etc, which HAVE occured, will take an
indeterminable length of time to bring about ultimate stability and yes,
stars and accompanying planets will be of the order of billions of years
old ( the "mainstream-type" at least). So, as I see it, I am faced with a
dilemma. No electric Sun - no recent catastrophism and consequently, many
of the historical myths and legends relating to recent catastrophe's, must
be exactly that, just pure metaphors, prophetic self-aggrandising
ramblings and ancient idle tittle-tattle.

However, if ELECTRICITY does actually rule, then the possible causation of
events such as the Noachic Flood, Joshua's long day and the Exodus can be
readily theorised and explained both in natural and physical terms. For
example, its been "calculated" that for the Earth to undergo a cessation
of rotational spin (or an altered axis for that matter), would require an
"object" to be in fairly close proximity and of an order of mass equalling
approx. 62 (sixty two) Suns! Obviously untenable.

But this does not necessarily mean that the account of Joshua for instance
did not occur. After all, the same phenomenon (the Sun and Moon "standing
still" for anything up to 24 hours), was recorded in other parts of the
world at the same time and quite independently of each other. Similarly
for the Flood and many other world-wide catastrophes.

The missing component in these "calculations" it seems to me is
ELECTRICITY and its many subsequent interactions, particularly on the
grand scale, perhaps actually involving close planetary encounters within
recorded memory. Unfortunately for us, in our current experience, we can
only study the phenomenon of electricity on the small scale ie.
terrestrial lightning in its various forms and plasma physics in
laboratories etc.(no living person has ever witnessed an interplanetary
thunderbolt), but gravity alone, to my mind, cannot explain any of these
events satisfactorily.

So it appears that I have answered my own question and I realise I may be
wrong here and there, but I do carry the strength of my own convictions
and with the EUT being a huge subject and quite a convincing one, worthy
in my view of more intense study, the very concept just might one day,
become accepted dogma in its own right. It does after all, in one theory
alone, explain a lot of phenomena.

John T.

(end)