The Electric Universe Paperback – January 1, 2007

Better than “Thunderbolts of the Gods”. Although Wal Thornhill is a “Velikovskian Zombie Drone” and that’s how he and David Talbott are co-authoring this series of monographs, here very little of the Zombie Drone appears and it’s down to mostly faith free science (three cheers!)The science here is nearly all very solid and well explained and well illustrated. (The problems with mis-described illustrations in “Thunderbolts of the God’s”, which potentially ruin the argument, is not a problem here.)Chapter 1’s history of Plasma Study is well presented and deserves to be much better known! It seems to have been the Cinderella of Science but definitely deserves a unique position in science, given that Plasma is the origin of everything.However as well as this Thornhill gives a very fair resume of the history of the opposition, the “Scientific Silly Consensus” and how come they have got themselves stuck in such a corner, where they have progressively alienated themselves from all observation and genuine science!In some ways the whole of the book is rather “Confrontational” and a lot is explained in terms of what is radically wrong with the “Consensus”. This is understandable for any underdog fighting against a well entrenched consensus. It is not the worst case I have seen of this phenomenon and Thornhill generally keeps the balance and uses the confrontational tension to good effect in his explanations.The presentation of Electricity in the Space in chapter 2 is equally good, well explained, well illustrated, no Holy Cows left untouched! It’s not difficult stuff, if you know just a bit already about science, especially Physics and Cosmology, but it is always challenging and certainly makes one think carefully about certain theories that one may have held dear. This section is full of pictures which make it visually obvious that almost everything that Thornhill is saying is spot on. Beautiful too!In this section I felt that there should have been a short presentation of the Electric Theory of Magnetism. After all it is one of the major criticisms of the currently accepted “Scientific Credo” that Magnetic Fields exist independently of Electricity. Yes - “No Magnetic Field without and Electric Current”, but then how do Magnets work? It’s the question that many readers will ask. It should have been covered. Yes - with my “A Level” Physics from years back in school it took me only minutes to work out how that applied to Magnets, but some other readers may not be so privileged?It’s not Plasma but it is still a part of the “Electric Universe”, because the electrons are bound, rotating in the (mostly) metal molecules and only certain molecules allow the “Laser Like” permanent re-ordering and “aiming” of those Electrical “Flywheels”. So even without a current at the macroscopic level there is LOTS of movement of Electrons in that there magnet! So “No Magnetism without Electricity” holds the day! To have explained this would have further underlined the point, it would have only taken a single Information Panel.The other thing I was itching for Thornhill to explain was his theory of Electrical Gravity. Yes he says it will be covered in a later monograph, but he’s mentioned it now and that’s cruel! Einstein spent so many years trying to “Unify” Gravity with the other forces (including Electricity) – and failed miserably. Others also have tried - and failed miserably. The “Copenhagen Congregation” believe they know all the answers – and fail to explain anything! I just want to know – OK? And here lies the key to the “Dark Side” – the Velikovskian Zombie Warriors.Chapter 3 about the Sun and Stars was VERY interesting and mostly plain sailing, until the section on Red Giants and White Darwfs, which wasn’t quite up to Thornhills normal high level of clarity. I will return to this section and see if I can make better sense of it later. While the reader should expect to put work into something as important as this, a little more concentration on this topic would have helped. Thornhill normally explains things so well!Chapter 4 about the Electric Comet was fairly familiar to me as I’ve been keeping up with the recent discoveries due to various missions to comets. Everything Thornhill says about comets is spot on and a HUGE embarrassment to the “Consensus” Snow Trolls.Comets are really another key ingredient because they don’t seem to obey the theories of the Astrophysicists! As an Amateur Archeo-Astronomer I’m aware that my copy of “Starry Night Pro”, even though it goes back tens of thousands of years and is mostly quite reliable in the order of 12,000 years ago, for planets and the Sun and the closer Milky Way Stars, is actually rather un-reliable about (galaxies and) Comets. If you go backwards and forwards trying to work out what people thousands of years ago were seeing, you’ll often see comets whiz past, but if you try to view that section again, the comet often has changed position and date! This is not surprising given what the Electric Universe says about comets. Comets are Electrically Eroded and never the same from orbit to orbit. They are also relatively small and much more influenced by the huge Electric Forces upon them. To be fair Starry Night Pro do somewhere give a disclaimer about the accuracy of some aspects of the program, Comets being one of them. I think I may be right in guessing that Thornhill wouldn’t bother using a Star Program because he doesn’t believe they are even accurate enough to have ANY use?Now that comes right back to the Electric Theory of Gravity. If “G” – the gravitational constant is not constant then that buggers up “Starry Night” big time! And yet many Archaeo-Astronomers have found such software invaluable and have come up with some pretty amazing work, including datings for ancient monuments, more information about what the ancients believed, a better understanding of the structures found and their symbolism and meaning. I for one count this as valid evidence that the balance between Electricity and Gravity, although massively favouring Electricity whenever electrons or ions are dominant, clearly does allow some extended periods and zones where gravity alone (with a constant “G”) is a pretty good approximation.From chapter 2, this is clearly NOT the case for Galaxies and above in size where Electricity has been, is and always will be King and Queen. From chapter 4, this is clearly NOT the case with Comets, where Gravity cannot come close to explaining even the orbits alone. However this “Balance” between Electricity and Gravity is the key issue to do with the “Dark Side” of Velikovskian Zombie Drones. So we need to SEE that theory and those equations which will tell us, allow us to predict, what order of Electric Phenomenon would be required for the Planets to start moving around like the Easter Island Moai under Telekinetic Transportation! (Sorry Electro-Magnetic “Suspension” of the force of Gravity?) Without WORKING “Electrical Gravity” equations then all this talk about Mars, Venus, Saturn or Earth flying about like mad things is just a pipe dream and an article of FAITH not science!It is not promising that the belief about “Cavorting Planets” seems to precede the rigorous scientific explanation (and in the publication dates too) and seems to have “Evidential Base” only in the misinterpretations of Myths by David Talbott (and Velikovsky himself). It looks like this is a “Holy Cow” just as they are criticising the “Scientific Consensus” of having.In contrast “Cavorting Planets” is an extremely well known phenomenon in “Astrology” and despite the very common (and fair) prejudice against the Huxters and Tabloids, actually requires no Magic to explain it! Planets (in Ancient Astrological terms that includes Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn alone) are defined as the “Wanderers”, because their paths along the Ecliptic are so Capricious and require quite a serious study to predict. None of those Planets are observed to have steady, constant movement (no not even Sun and Moon!). They apparently speed up and slow down in their path. Not including the Sun and Moon, the Planets even regularly go “Retrograde”, which means that they are actually OBSERVED to stop, reverse direction for a while, stop again and then go back to their normal direction! Yes the Gods (the Planets) were always considered to be an erratic bunch.No, the Myths don’t talk about anything using a Modern 3 Dimensional Projection of the Solar System. They weren’t primitive but they didn’t think like an Orrery, more like an Armillary Sphere or an Astrolabe. EVEN if later Greek and Roman presentations of the Myths, talk about them as if they were more like an Orrery or a Modern 3D Solar System Model, the Myths were not created by the Greeks or Romans, so the 19th and 20th Century Mythologists use of Greek and Roman Myth as a model for understanding all others was fundamentally wrong in method and thoroughly prejudiced in origin. It was the stories the Upper Crust were encouraged to read as children! (and even when they grew up?) Likewise the obsession of 19th and 20th Century “Scholars” with their “Superiority” tainted all their thought, projecting “Primitive” on all other races, religions and earlier times. I have repeatedly found this “Scholarship” to be utterly shoddy, while the “Civilization” concerned was the true Barbaric, Uncultured, Ignorant, Murdering, Bastard Breed. (Yes – that’s us!)I have a strong feeling that Thornhill would want to place the Balance point much more close to Absolute Electrical “Tyranny” than I would. To me it seems that my opinion is based on Observation (that the Newtonian Gravitational Model has “Worked”, at least in the Holocene!) In contrast Thornhill’s theory of “Looney Moons and Planets” seems to place the Balance point much too far away from this clear evidence, based solely on the deeply prejudiced and knee jerk mis-interpretations of his Velikovskian colleague David Talbott. An article of Faith, not a part of Science. Shame on you for your little bit of hypocrisy!------To show “good faith” and that we are “on the same side” in the struggle against the Scientific Consensus I’d like to offer a personal interpretation of a little issue, which really deserves it.Now I’ve not read Alfven, Birkland, Peratt or Langmuir and although I currently have Scott’s “Electric Sky” I’ve not yet read it. However the answer to this little conundrum is not evident in THIS work, so I have to assume that my ideas here may be fresh?It’s to do with the Plasma Sheaths and Double Layers, the boundaries between Plasma regions of “different properties”. Thornhill’s use of these concepts is perfectly good basic science, founded on observation of how Plasma works, but in this work at least no explanation is given of why they do this, it’s just the way it IS.It is pretty damn important to understanding Plasma that these things ARE there, and so we want to know the details, why and how? Well I do at least!All the necessary information is already there in Thornhill’s presentation, but he’s not going to “Go There” because the answer is, in this one case, an “Electric” re-interpretation of the theory of the Opposing Camp! Here it is necessary to refer to the Information Panel on pg. 64 about “Magnetic Reconnection”. Now this is “anathema” to Thornhill and he explains why he thinks this is wrong (without his usual high level of clarity). He wants to believe that this is another case where the “Consensus” are (my analogy) wanting to have their right and left hand rules without the fingers that represent the Electric Force. The right and left hand rules are quick indicators that help to see where the magnetic “lines” of force will be for any given electric current and in reverse, where the current will be induced in a wire by a magnetic field through which it moves. But if you take away the Electric “Finger” in either case you don’t have a rule left!! This is my analogy, re-stating Thornhill’s rule that there is “no Magnetism without Electricity”.However I feel that, from what I see here, that the scientist concerned has made an observation about the behaviour that he sees, but has just got the details slightly wrong. (So lets correct it!)My interpretation goes as follows. The Solar Ion Output (not a “Wind”!) jousts with the Earth’s own Electric Output and at a certain distance from the Planet reaches a balance. The Plasma Sheath, the Double Layer doesn’t just “happen” but must obey the left and right hand rules. The twin outputs of Sun and Earth both create magnetic fields which in their interaction at this balance point bend each other more or less at right angles, causing an overall 360 degree bend in the magnetic field lines at this point. It is not “Reconnection”! Magnetic fields cannot be interrupted so they cannot be re-connected! (The “Consensus” in contrast don’t mind a little Physical or Mathematical Impossibility!) Furthermore and sticking with Electric universe observation here, rather than Giovannelli’s supposition, the strong effect of this 360 degree kinking of the Field is to generate not a “Jet” but a “Sheet”.It is known that “Jets” DO happen around charged bodies, but in the case of comets, they come from the surface, and in the case of stars (and planets?) they come from the Poles or they “Punch Through” the Double layer from below or from above (as is the case with Sun Spots). We DON’T observe Jets in the location suggested by Giovannelli, but we DO see Sheets!!! We do Observe a Double Layer! That “turbulence” experienced by at least one probe in travelling through from the outer Plasma environment to the Inner Plasma environment. A layer seen in so many laboratory Plasma experiments through it’s own significant power to accelerate ions and give off radiation!So the intense magnetic “Bending” which IS observed to happen at this location IS the generating mechanism of the Double Layer itself. And as Thornhill rightly observes, this isn’t a “Bow Shock” or caused by “Impact”, but by the normal rules of Electricity and Plasma. No magnetic Field without an Electric movement.I take this as being OBVIOUS really from the evidence presented by Thornhill. However as I said, I think the only reason that he didn’t “say this first”, is that he is so single-mindedly opposed to “Magnetic Reconnection”, that he didn’t see how an “Electrified Version” of it could offer this “Missing Link” in the Plasma/Electric Universe Theory!With regard to the details of applying those right and left hand rules at that “Kink”. I am confident that they are obeyed there, however as mine is only slightly rusty “A level” Physics from school while this is Thornhill’s speciality, I leave the application of those rules in detail to him!And to cap this interpretation off with some humour, it’s quite obvious really that “Little Boys” playing with their Magnets and Iron Filings shouldn’t create a whole Cosmology on a mis-interpretation of that! Cos that’s exactly what has happened here in the case of “Magnetic Reconnection”! The “Little Boy” (Astrophysicist!) has seen the Magnet’s “Power” and can’t see the Electrons moving and the “Little Boy” (Astrophysicist) has applied the same to his theory of the universe.Needless to say (if this interpretation is fresh) I do hereby affirm that I am the author of it and affirm my copyright on it and the duty to be credited if Thornhill chooses to use it!

Having studied astronomy and having followed the A to Z of it for decades, I must say that I have never encountered anything as original, sweeping, and compelling as the ideas presented in Thornhill and Talbott's "Electric Universe".Mainstream astronomy offers a wealth of extravagant theories but with a paucity of observable evidence to back them up. "Electric Universe" points up these glaring absences and contradictions and presents a set of far more plausible plasma-oriented interpretations.Thornhill and Talbott point to mainstream astronomy's naive assumption that space is electrically neutral everywhere. Plasma physics, as has been demonstrated in numerous laboratory experiments, offers a more viable explanatory model than the gravitation-based theories that have dominated 20th Century astronomy. The fact that the electric force is 39 orders of magnitudes stronger than the gravitational force is reason enough for it to be included, at least considered, as a significant influence in shaping the course of the universe. I am astonished that the electric force-based ideas as presented in this book are being systematically overlooked by mainstream astronomers, and even by popular trade magazines. You may well join me in asking, What has happened to science as an open dialogue and a selection of theories that best fits the evidence?For decades astronomy has based most of its ideas on a single interpretation of the evidence: for example, the red shift being seen only as a distance marker; an abiding belief that the 3-degree background radiation represents an echo of the big bang; redoubtable propositions about dark matter and dark energy to support gravity-based explanations of galactic motion; and likewise that solar energy is produced at the center of the sun and transported to the surface by slow convection processes; and so forth. Is there room in this vast universe for alternative views? Thornhill and Talbott point to the disturbing evidence that cast doubt on these time-worn theories. For example, the statistical occurrence of quasars in the vicinity of nearby galactic clusters makes problematic the yardstick view of the red shift; the infamous solar neutrino deficiency should have long ago led to new modes of thought about solar energy production. The authors not only describe the many observed contradictions, they offer their own stunningly original theories based on an electrically active universe.Rather than shunning their plasma-based theories, astronomers should welcome the appearance of a new set of plausible alternatives to their held-fast ideas. Science should be a dialogue of competing ideas. It should not be a religion with a single explanation of phenomena that is to be taken as orthodox fact. But that is what the science of astronomy has become, unfortunately. That's why I am so grateful for and so enthusiastic about this book, which I feel gives us an important glimpse into a new astronomy for the 21st Century. For its provocative challenges to standard astronomical thought and for offering a most engaging and plausible set of alternatives, "The Electric Universe" is simply indispensable.

Why obsolete, rubbish, and absurd astronomy must be replaced by alternative theories?The authors explain thoroughly using huge amount of observed data and compelling theories, i.e. electromagnetism, plasma. This book has only 122 pages but the reader probably needs to take a seat belt for intellectual challenge in every aspect. Readers who have strong understanding of electromagnetism or electric engineering would have in better position because the authors uses terminologies often.However the authors opens up almost all aspect of problematic modern astronomy from Big Bang theory to Comets including how lightening on Earth actually is part of bigger drama of cosmic events.This book has the format of semi scientific research paper without using mathematics and symbols. Any reader who want to study deep of Electric Universe can choose hundreds of references on the book. Each page has at least one or two references at the boom either published paper or book.I now understand why more and more people support the Electric Universe theory. The authors literally destroy the foundation of modern astronomy case by case, piece by piece. It's overwhelming experience indeed. After I finished the final chapter, I got relieved with a hope. "Science will soon be part of daily reality not such absurd, delusional hypothesis controlled by secretive sciences."