|
by David Talbott
from
Thunderbolts Website
Contents
Multimedia
Additional
Information
The Iron Sun
Nov 23, 2005
Image: The Sun
in FeXII Light
Credit: SOHO-EIT Consortium, ESA, NASA
The image of the sun above was recorded
in the light given off by iron atoms that have lost 11 of their 26
electrons. The energy required to remove that many electrons is far
greater than the energy available at the surface of the sun. These
iron ions occur high in the sun's atmosphere--in the corona--where
the effective temperature is 2 million degrees or more, 400 times
that of the photosphere.
The conventional explanation is that the high temperature causes the
iron atoms to collide with enough force to knock off those 11
electrons. But then the question arises about how the atmosphere can
be hotter than the surface. The corona is farther away from the
putative source of energy inside the sun, and it is less dense. It
should be cooler than the photosphere.
The Electric Universe reverses the accepted ideas of which
phenomenon is cause and which phenomenon is effect. The sun's
atmosphere contains a complex of electrical fields that are strong
enough to pull off those 11 electrons. A field that strong will also
accelerate the ions to speeds interpreted as high temperatures. This
activity is only one element in a circuit that connects the sun with
electrical currents in the Galaxy. These galactic power lines are
the source of energy that "lights" the stars, including the sun. The
energy from those power lines is liberated at the photosphere rather
than being transported from the core to the surface.
The voltage between the sun and its galactic environment is not
distributed uniformly and gradually. As is typical with plasma
behavior, most of the voltage difference occurs in "double layers" (DLs).
These are thin layers with an excess of positive ions on one side
and an excess of negative electrons on the other. They resemble, and
act like, capacitors: They store electrical energy in the strong
electrical field between the positive and negative layers.
Each DL is separated from the next by a low voltage gradient, across
which ions and electrons "drift." This drift current is often called
a wind. A familiar example is the "solar wind" that drifts from the DLs near the sun to the DLs that make up the
heliopause at the other
end of the sun's connection with the galactic currents.
When the low-energy iron ions from the photosphere drift into the DL
above, the stronger electrical field strips off more electrons and
accelerates the ions to high speeds. The strength of the field keeps
the ions moving in alignment so it is not apparent that their energy
is increasing. But when they emerge into the low-voltage gradient of
the corona their motion becomes turbulent, like that of water in a
waterfall when it hits the river below. Because temperature is a
measure of randomness of motion, the corona appears to "heat up"
suddenly, and the 11-times-ionized iron atoms begin to radiate their
newly acquired energy.
What the Electric Universe sees in "the iron sun" is the iron-ion
component of the electric current driving the sun's radiation output
as part of a galactic electrical circuit.
Back
Nuclear
Reactions at the Solar Surface
Jan 20, 2006
This colorized
picture is a mosaic of ultraviolet images from the orbiting TRACE
satellite sensitive to light emitted
by highly charged iron atoms. Growing in number, the intricate
structures visible are the Sun's hot active regions
(with temperatures over a million degrees Fahrenheit), all with
associated magnetic loops.
Proponents of the "Iron Sun", a theory widely represented on the
Internet in recent months, challenge the popular idea that the Sun
is powered by thermonuclear reactions at its core. And they point to
nuclear reactions on the Sun's surface, something considered
impossible under the standard model.
Scientists now supporting a new approach to solar physics—the “Iron
Sun” — mention neither the Electric Universe nor the “Electric Sun”.
But their findings add powerful support to the electric model of the
Sun posited by Wallace Thornhill, Donald Scott, and earlier pioneers
beginning with engineer
Ralph Juergens in the late 60's. It
was the electrical theorists who first suggested that surface
events, not a hidden nuclear furnace at the Sun’s center, appear to
be the source of neutrino production (the subatomic signature of
nuclear fusion).
In recent years nuclear chemist Oliver Manuel and several of his
collaborators have attracted scientific attention for proposing a
radical alternative to the standard model of the Sun. Manuel
suggests that the Sun is the remnant of a supernova, now holding in
its core a “neutron star” encased within an iron shell. In this
model, most of the radiant energy of the Sun comes from the neutron
star’s slow decay over long spans of time.
Manuel draws attention to recent discoveries by solar scientists. He
finds compelling evidence that nuclear reactions occur at the foot
points of solar flares—hot spots associated with prominent magnetic
loops and intense electric fields. This observation places the
nuclear reactions far from where conventional theorists locate
them--at the Sun’s core.
To confirm these surface events Iron Sun proponents point to the
telltale signatures of the “CNO cycle” first set forth in the work
of Hans Bethe. In 1939 Bethe proposed that the stable mass-12
isotope of Carbon catalyzes a series of atomic reactions in the core
of the Sun, resulting in the fusion of hydrogen into helium. This nucleosynthesis, according to
Bethe, occurs through a
“Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) cycle,” as helium is constructed from
the nuclei of hydrogen atoms—protons—at temperatures ranging from 14
million K to 20 million K.
For some time now, solar scientists have observed the products
expected from the CNO cycle, but now they see a relationship of
these products’ abundances to sunspot activity. This finding is
crucial because the nuclear events that standard theory envisions
are separated from surface events by hundreds of thousands of years
as the heat from the core slowly percolates through the Sun’s
hypothetical “radiative zone”. From this vantage point, a connection
between the hidden nuclear furnace and sunspot activity is
inconceivable.
Proponents of the Iron Sun, therefore, have posed an issue that
could be fatal to the standard model. But as we shall attempt to
show, there is a good deal more room to add objections within this
question.
The Iron Sun proponents are to be congratulated for their research
showing that the Sun does not shine because of nuclear fusion in its
core. It takes great courage to stake your work and reputation
against established dogma. If science operated in the way it
advertises, the search for the truth in this essential matter would
involve a concentration of resources to confirm or deny the evidence
amassed by the Iron Sun proponents. The questions raised are crucial
whether or not the proposed model of the Sun is correct. Yet there
seems to be pressure on researchers to have a model at hand to
explain "anomalous" results. In the case of the “Iron Sun”, the
result is less than perfect because there is a flaw at the very
heart of popular cosmology:
All matter in the universe is composed of electric charge. The
electric force between charges mediates all physical interactions,
irrespective of scale. It is the electric force that energizes
matter. By ignoring electricity, cosmologists have committed an
error so fundamental that the mistake invariably propagates through
any and all of their theoretical excursions. The electrical
theorists see this as the overriding cause of the oft-noted “crisis
in cosmology”, and the effects on related disciplines—bound as they
are by the assumptions of cosmologists—have been nothing less than
catastrophic.
Back
The Myth of the Neutron Star
Jan 23, 2006
Credits: Crab Nebula
from VLT: FORS Team, 8.2-meter VLT, ESO; X-ray Image
(inset): NASA/CXC/ASU/J. Hester et al; Optical Image (inset): NASA/HST/ASU/J.
Hester et al.
Caption: The Crab Nebula as viewed by the Very Large Telescope (VLT).
The inset superimposes two images: an X-ray
photograph of the Crab Nebula’s intensely energetic core, taken by
the Chandra X-ray Observatory; and a Hubble
Telescope photograph of the same region.
In his argument for the “Iron Sun”,
Oliver Manuel relies on a popular theoretical concept—the “neutron
star”. Electrical theorists, on the other hand, say there is no
reason to believe that such exotic stars exist.
At the core of the Crab Nebula pictured above is a remarkable
churning “wheel-and-axle” structure (inset above and
click picture below) whose discovery shocked
astronomers. No conventional model of supernova remnants ever
anticipated exotic structures comparable to what is seen here.
Some things are known about the Crab Nebula, however. It is close to
certain that it is the result of a supernova observed from Earth in
1054 A.D. The inner ring of the central “motor” has a diameter of
about one light year. Intensely energetic jets stream outward from
the central light source in two directions along the axis of an
intense magnetic field. Additionally, observations over time have
shown that rings and strands of material are moving outward on the
equatorial plane at great speeds, some up to half the speed of
light.
The point of light at the center of the image is a pulsar, so called
because it generates pulses at radio frequencies roughly 60 times a
second. (Pulses can also be observed optically and in X-rays.)
But what cause these rapid pulses? Most astronomers today attempt to
interpret pulsars using a strange idea based entirely on
mathematical conjectures. They say that the pulsar is a tiny
spinning “neutron star”—the collapsed remains of the historic
supernova.
Neutron stars were predicted theoretically in the 1930's to be the
end result of a supernova explosion. For many years astronomers
doubted their existence. But then, with the discovery of the first
pulsar in 1967, astronomers imagined that the pulses were due to a
rapidly rotating beam of radiation sweeping past the Earth. Having
ignored all of the things that electricity can do quite routinely,
the theorists were required to conceive a star so dense that it
could rotate at the rate of a dentists drill without flying apart.
So the neutron star received a second life. The energy of the star’s
radiation, it was supposed, came from in-falling matter from a
companion star.
The imaginative construct received no support from later
observations. In the Crab Nebula, what we now see is not
gravitational accretion, but material accelerated away from the
central star. In fact, all of the weird and wonderful things said
about neutron stars, such as the super-condensed "neutronium" or
"quark" soup from which they are claimed to have formed, lie outside
the realm of verifiable science. They are abstractions disconnected
from nature, but required to save a paradigm that has no other force
than gravity to provide compact sources of radiation.
Oliver Manuel and the Iron Sun advocates have taken a daring step in
questioning conventional fictions about the Sun. But unfortunately,
they have relied upon another popular fiction. They suggest that the
Sun was formed by accretion of heavy elements, chiefly iron, onto a
“neutron star” following a supernova explosion. They further claim
that energy from neutrons, supposedly repelled from its neutron star
core, accounts for the Sun's radiant energy and the source of
protons in the solar wind. The model does not explain the
acceleration of the solar wind out past the planets (a crucial
requirement according to electrical experts).
Such speculations, resting upon the earlier flights of cosmological
fancy, beg the question as to the origin of all other stars.
Supernovae are exceedingly rare events, and there is no sound reason
to believe that neutron stars are even physically possible.
However appealing the original logic may have been to some, the
neutron star model should have been discarded when pulsars were
found with supposed “spin” and cooling rates that required the
mathematicians to conjure ever more dense and exotic particles–like
quarks–that have never been observed.
Critics of the “neutron star” hypothesis say that it is a violation
of common sense to speak of matter being gravitationally compressed
to the point that the orbiting electrons in an atom are forced to
join with the protons in the nucleus to form neutrons. The nearly
2000-fold difference in weight between the electron and the
proton
will ensure charge separation in an intense gravitational field.
Each atom will become a tiny radial electric dipole that assists
charge separation. And the electric force of repulsion is 39 orders
of magnitude stronger than gravity, so extremely weak charge
separation is sufficient to resist gravitational compression. The
force of gravity is effectively zero in the presence of the electric
force.
All of today’s popular ideas about supernovae, the supposed
progenitors of neutron stars, were formulated under a gravity-only
ideology that has, in recent decades, been challenged (and electric
theorists would say overturned) by the discovery of plasma and
powerful electric and magnetic fields in space.
Supernovae have recently been identified
as catastrophic stellar electrical discharges. The remnant of such a
discharge cannot be the imagined rapidly spinning super-dense
object: powerful electrical forces will always prevent gravitational
"super-collapse."
Plasma physicists have shown (in the words of K. Healy and
A. Peratt)
that the pulsed radiation detected from some supernova remnants may,
"…derive either from the pulsar’s interaction with its environment
or by energy delivered by an external circuit. …[O]ur results
support the ‘planetary magnetosphere’ view, where the extent of the
magnetosphere, not emission points on a rotating surface, determines
the pulsar emission.”
These concrete results do not rest on events
merely imagined. And they dovetail with facts that are now
inescapable: electric discharges in plasma are fully capable of
generating the exotic structures of supernova remnants seen in deep
space. The "wheel and axle" form of the supernova remnant in the
Crab nebula is that of a simple Faraday electric motor. Its
structure also conforms to the stellar circuit diagram espoused by
the father of plasma cosmology, Hannes Alfvén.
It is a pity that the “Iron Sun” researchers are not conversant with
plasma cosmology and the Electric Sun model. They make a compelling
case against the standard solar model, and their recent findings of
electrically induced nuclear reactions on the solar surface could
open a pathway to discoveries reaching well beyond solar science.
Back
Exploding the
Myth of the Imploding Supernova
Jan 24, 2006
Credit: NASA/STScI/CfA/P
Challis
Caption: Supernova 1987A is the closest supernova event since the
invention of the telescope
When a star called “SK-69 202” exploded
on February 24, 1987, becoming “Supernova 1987A”, the shock to
conventional theory was as great as the visual wonder in the
heavens. The event did not “emulate the theory”, but rather appears
to have involved catastrophic electrical discharge.
Prior to Supernova 1987A, astronomers assumed that a supernova
signaled the death throes of a red supergiant star. But the star
that exploded — SK-69 202 — was a blue supergiant, perhaps 20 times
smaller than a red supergiant and a much different breed of star.
Astronomers had long supposed that supernovae occur when a star
“exhausts its nuclear fuel", causing a collapse or implosion
followed by a violent “rebound” effect when the outer layers of the
star hit the core. The resulting blast, they said, ejects a
spherical shell of material into interstellar space where it
collides with its own slower moving stellar wind generated during
its earlier, more stable phases.
But Supernova 1987A tells a different story.
Pictured above is the changing appearance of Supernova 1987A over a
27-month period as imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope. The
photograph shows three axially aligned rings. The bright inner ring
is about 1.3 light-years in diameter. The conventional theory of
supernovae had not predicted, or in any way anticipated, the
distinctive bi-polar structure of Supernova 1987A, similar to that
of
many nebulas now documented. Nor
did the theory have anything to say about the bright "beads".
Since there is an entrenched habit today of reinterpreting the
surprises of the space age as if they were not really surprises,
readers would do well to remember the original statement by Dr.
Chris Burrows of the European Space Agency and the Space Telescope
Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland, when Supernova 1987A was
first discovered.
"This is an unprecedented and bizarre object. We
have never seen anything behave like this before”.
Thus, the
“Astronomy
Picture of the Day” for July 5, 1996, states without
equivocation that “the origins of these rings still remains a
mystery”.
Nevertheless, the inertia of prior theory is strong enough that
astronomers continue to identify the rings as “shells” of gas struck
by the supernova’s high-energy “shock front”—though it is only
necessary to look at the pictures to see that the rings are not
shells. They are tori (rings) around a dynamic center occupying a
common axis—a characteristic structure observed in high-energy
plasma discharge experiments. But the crucial feature of SN 1987A is
the bright beads.
Both the number and position of the beads conforms to
Birkeland
current filaments in a powerful plasma discharge known as a
"z-pinch." Electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill has predicted,
"…the ring will not grow as a shock-wave-produced ring would be
expected to. Some bright spots may be seen to rotate about each
other and to merge. It is an opportunity …to be able to verify the
electric discharge nature of a supernova."
More than fifty years ago a British scientist,
Dr. Charles E. R.
Bruce (1902-1979), argued that the bipolar shape, temperatures and
magnetic fields of “planetary nebulae” could be explained as an
electrical discharge. Bruce was ideally situated to make the
discovery, being both an electrical engineer versed in high-energy
lightning behavior and a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society.
He was ignored.
Since that time, the structure and dynamics of high-energy
electrical discharge in plasma has been well researched—most
importantly, in the work of Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén, and over
the past two decades or more by Alfvén’s close colleague, Anthony Peratt.
The work of the cosmic electricians bears directly on the “Iron Sun”
debate. When Oliver Manuel began to formulate his model of the Sun,
ideas about supernovae lay at the heart of his thinking. From a
study of the unusual isotopic composition of meteorites, Manuel had
concluded that the objects had formed from the remains of a
supernova. In this, he was following a tenet of conventional
astronomy, which argues that elements heavier than iron and nickel
in the solar system were created by distant supernovae over billions
of years. Except that Manuel concluded that the supernova creating
iron and other heavy element abundances in meteorites was the
precursor to our own Sun.
Though the Iron Sun model brings with it an insightful critique of
the standard nuclear fusion model of the Sun, Manuel did not break
free from the old gravitational concepts on the nature of
supernovae; but he did add a new twist, suggesting that the Sun
hides a neutron star around which accreted an iron shell after the
Sun’s supernova explosion.
As the electrical theorists see it, the mistake of following a
conventional myth invariably set Manuel on a dead-end course. The
Electric Sun model, these theorists claim, can account for all of
the strange phenomena exhibited by the Sun and its environment. And
the explanations do not require them to guess what is inside the Sun
or to posit unlikely events leading to the birth of the Sun.
Concerning the birth of stars, the Electric Sun model embraces the
new science of plasma cosmology. Plasma cosmologists can demonstrate
the principles of star birth in the plasma "z-pinch"; and they
achieve their results both in the laboratory and in supercomputer
simulations. In contrast, the earlier notion of gravitationally
collapsing molecular clouds began as a theoretical guess and never
found the required observational support. Nor has it been shown how
planets can form from a ring of dust about a star, a crucial
requirement.
Stellar explosions have always been a problem for conventional
gravitational theory. What could trigger the sudden release of such
prodigious energy? The sudden gravitational implosion of the entire
star is an ingenious idea for a trigger but highly implausible
because it requires spherical symmetry on the vast scale of a giant
star. The ejections observed from supernova remnants show that the
process is axially symmetric. However, if a star is the focus of a
galactic electric discharge together with internal charge
stratification, it may naturally undergo an expulsive stellar
"lightning-flash" to relieve the electrical stress.
An electric star
has electromagnetic energy stored in an equatorial current ring such
as the torus (imaged in UV light) around our Sun. As stated by
electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill,
"Matter is ejected at low
latitudes by discharges between the current ring and the star. The
Sun does this regularly on a small scale. However, if the stored
energy reaches some critical value it may be released in the form of
a bipolar axial discharge, or ejection of matter along the
rotational axis."
Creation of heavy metals, according to
Thornhill, does not require a
supernova. In the electric model of stars, electrical energy
produces heavy elements near the surface of all stars—a claim now
given additional support by Manuel’s own findings.
But the Iron Sun model makes the curious claim that energy from
neutrons, supposedly repelled from its neutron star core, provides
most of the Sun's radiant energy and the protons for the solar wind.
The Electric Sun model, on the other hand, says that external
electrical energy, supplied from the galaxy, is responsible for
producing the radiant output of the Sun, the solar wind and most of
the heavy elements seen in the solar spectrum. The production of
iron atoms requires energy input. So all stars participate in the
synthesis of heavy elements. (This is a far more satisfying theory
than relying upon rare supernovae, which then disperse their heavy
elements into deep space).
The solar wind is merely an equatorial
current sheet forming part of the circuit that "drives" the Sun. The
magnetic field of the Sun is generated by a varying direct-current
power input to the Sun. It is only to be expected, therefore, that
the observed power variations would be reflected in the sunspot
cycle and in changes in both x-ray brightness and the magnetic field
of the Sun. No mysterious "dynamo" inside the Sun could explain
these synchronous patterns.
The Electric Sun model anticipates the building of heavier atomic
nuclei from the protons and neutrons at the foot points of solar
flares. But it also expects most nuclear reactions to occur in the
tornadic discharges that form solar
granulations (where the nuclear kitchen is in full view). In
particular, the latter prediction fits the observed anti-correlation
between neutrino count and sunspot number. The more sunspots there
are, the fewer solar granulations and neutrinos. This unique
correlation does not fit any model that proposes an energy source
inside the Sun, unrelated to sunspots.
For an Electric Sun, what happens in the Sun’s core is of little
consequence. We should expect an incompressible solid or liquid core
composed of heavy elements gathered in the primordial z-pinch and
later synthesized in the continual stellar discharge. But since the
glowing sphere we call the Sun is an electric discharge high in its
atmosphere, we should naturally expect the lightest element,
hydrogen, to predominate as the plasma medium for the discharge.
There is no need to postulate an internal source of energy to
support the photosphere since (as direct observation confirms) the
photosphere and phenomena above the photosphere, such as flares and
prominences, are not governed by gravity.
The energy which fuels the Sun may be transferred over cosmic
distances via Birkeland current transmission lines. This energy may
be released gradually or stored in a stellar circuit and unleashed
catastrophically. The cosmic circuits now revealed threading
themselves along the arms of the Milky are the energy source for the
supernova explosion– not the star. Only an external power source can
explain why the continuing energy output of some nebulae such as
Eta Carina exceeds that available
from the central star. (click below image)
A supernova does not signal the death
throes of a star. There is nothing inside the star to "die." Nor
does it herald the birth of a neutron star.
Back
Meteorites and
the Modern Myth of Solar System Genesis
Jan 26, 2006
Credit: http://oz.plymouth.edu/~sci_ed/Turski/Courses/Earth_Science/Intro.html
Caption: In the fashion of a textbook frontispiece, the illustration
above captures
the modern myth of solar system formation from a collapsing nebular
cloud.
In his “Iron Sun” theory, Oliver Manuel
has developed an unorthodox answer to puzzles concerning the birth
of the solar system, recorded in meteorites and lunar samples. But
in interpreting these samples, he has fallen prey to a conventional
myth as to their origins.
The popular theoretical picture of our solar system today is
strongly wedded to the “nebular hypothesis”. The theory traces the
origin of the Sun and planets to a primordial cloud of gas and dust,
in which the gravitational force led to the cloud’s progressive
collapse into a spinning disk. Within this disk, the Sun formed at
the center and all of the secondary bodies from planets and moons
down to asteroids, comets, and meteorites accreted from leftover
debris.
-
But how did gases in a diffuse “cloud” collapse against the inherent
tendency of gases in a vacuum to expand and rotating systems to fly
apart?
-
Why is the Sun tilted 7 degrees to the ecliptic?
-
Why should
giant planets, recently discovered in distant planetary systems,
favor a close orbit about their star, while Jupiter and Saturn orbit
far from the Sun?
-
And if the different bodies in our solar system
arose from a homogenous cloud, why does their composition vary so?
Plasma cosmology provides the simple answer to the question of how
stars are formed. They are formed by the powerful and long-reaching
electromagnetic force of a “plasma pinch”, a principle well
researched in the laboratory and now observed in detail in high
resolution images of planetary nebulae.
According to Hannes Alfvén and other pioneers of plasma cosmology, a
stellar system gives way to gravity only after the star is formed
and as the plasma pinch subsides. In this view it is not correct to
look to gravity as the cause of star formation. It is also normal
for a number of stars to be formed along the axis of the plasma
pinch and subsequently scatter "like buckshot" following the
collapse of the pinch. Planets are generally not formed at this
stage. We should expect that stars formed in this manner would, as a
group, tend to have their rotational axes aligned along the
direction of the galactic magnetic field.
The “Electric Universe” model of stars takes the role of the
electric force further, suggesting that evolving star systems move
through phases of electrical instability before achieving the
equilibrium that marks our own solar system today. Stellar
companions and gas giant planets are "born"—ejected—fully formed
from a star before it achieves electrical balance with its new
environment. That explains both the preponderance of multiple star
systems and the close-orbiting gas giants. Rocky planets and moons
are similarly born at intervals by means of electrical expulsion
from gas giants. Rings about gas giants and stars are principally a
result of electrical expulsion, not gravitational accretion.
In this view, the electrical birth pangs associated with newly-born
planets and moons can immerse celestial bodies in violent plasma
discharge, sculpting the surfaces of the newcomers. Planets and
moons are charged objects, and subsequent encounters in an unstable
system can leave surfaces dominated by electrical craters, vast
trenches, and other scars. Much of the excavated material can then
be lofted by the discharge into space as comet nuclei, asteroids,
and meteorites, while portions of the material may fall back to form
strata of shattered rock and loose soil. Electrical interactions
between planets also have the beneficial effect of quickly restoring
order out of chaos.
Like any biological family, the planets of our solar system were
born at different times and from different parents. They have a
complex history that includes electrical exchanges capable of
upsetting atomic clocks and producing numerous isotopic anomalies.
As rocky surfaces are excavated electrically, for example, the
resulting short-lived radioactive isotopes may wind up in the grains
of meteorites.
Proponents of the Electric Universe suggest that most conventional
claims about the birth of the solar system, though stated with great
confidence, are highly conjectural. And if one discerns something
fundamentally wrong in a common teaching in the sciences, a
skeptical posture toward other conventional assumptions is also
appropriate. We have already suggested that Oliver Manuel, in
developing his argument for the “Iron Sun”, was too willing to
accept orthodox assumptions.
Manuel writes, for example:
"The Apollo mission returned from the
Moon in 1969 with soil samples whose surfaces were loaded with
elements implanted by the solar wind," we can see that it is an
assumption based on an undisturbed, clockwork planetary system.
But
in this case the more telling facts may relate to lunar soil
isotopes that do not appear in the solar wind.
Based on the isotopic composition of meteorites, Manuel has
suggested that the nascent solar system must have experienced a very
close supernova explosion before meteorites were formed. But the
idea that either the Sun or any other body in the solar system is
the remnant of a supernova is unnecessary. There is no necessary
connection between supernovae and meteorite isotopes. In fact, it
was suggested long ago that the many strange features of meteorites
could have been formed in gargantuan lightning flashes within a
solar nebula. And Manuel has noted that grains in the Murchison
meteorite have isotope abundances related to grain size that "mimic
the properties of 'fall-out' grains produced after the explosion of
a nuclear weapon…" The Electric Universe model satisfies both ideas.
As we have already suggested, supernovae are emphatically an
electric discharge phenomenon. So the
many puzzling features of meteorites
may be explained by their formation in the debris of any high-energy
plasma discharge.
In these pages, we have documented the
recent
electrical sculpting of planets by
cosmic scale discharges in the solar system. We have suggested that
meteorites are the debris of planetary encounters, a conclusion now
supported by direct observation of planetary surfaces and by the
study of meteorites, the latter revealing the effects of flash
heating, ion implantation, and the isotopic anomalies that would be
expected from an interplanetary thunderbolt.
Of course, the close encounters required for electrical exchanges
mean that the planets were not formed in their present orbits, as
astronomers commonly assume. And there is good reason why virtually
every rocky body in the solar system shows evidence of
catastrophic encounters. The
history of the solar system is one of "punctuated equilibrium" –
long periods of stability punctuated by brief episodes of chaos as
new members are accommodated. The fact that no simple gradation of
planetary characteristics occurs within the solar family needs no
other explanation.
Back
|
