The internal constitution of planets neil thompson

The Internal Constitution of Planets Introduction: [Survey of the Problem] A new way of seeing Stellar and Planetary development is emerging. This work will explain the current thinking of the internal composition of the planets according to the new theories proposed by Wal Thornhill and Donald Scott and the Electric Universe paradigm. This radical rethinking brings a new understanding of the true nature of the planets and stars, how they came into existence, and what they are made of.

The struggle to comprehend the Earth we call home and the Sun that gives us light has been a long quest that has only become more complex as time has gone on. Our data pushed itself beyond the theory of Ptolemy’s earth centric universe and became the Copernican model of the sun centered universe. Now we have moved beyond those limited former views into what is called the Big Bang Universe. That is the view which we have been told is the truth. Now the new data from even finer instruments is challenging that view.

To better understand what this new paradigm implies it is important for us to understand what assumptions led to this Standard Model of planets and stars. The reader may be inclined to review this information before continuing to the substance of the paper.

In Sir Arthur Eddington’s work, ‘The Internal Constitution of the Stars’, Eddington attempted to quantify the endeavour of digging beneath the surface of the Sun. He wanted to peel back the Sun’s layers and to use relativity theory and gravity to determine what these bodies are made of. He studied Einstein’s work and although others in the field debated the truth of it, Eddington seized on it as a way of doing just that. After taking his observations of the Solar Eclipse of May 29th, 1919, he was off and running to try and make sense of this amazing gravitational engine and how it worked.

His book was, and is, the start of the Nuclear Fusion Solar Model and although a commendable piece of deduction, it made several assumptions to get to The paradigm was, at the time, for lack of a better description, Natural Philosophy. A holistic approach to understanding with all the individual sciences as subsets of this main branch. Science was reclaiming itself from beyond the dark ages, from far back into antiquity. Man was relearning again the classic

Figure 1: The book, The Internal Constitution of the Stars.

P a g e 1 | 26

Figure 2: The book, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.

literature, but also relearning the ancient sciences. During the 14th and 15th century, the Renaissance, Natural Philosophy was one of the branches of Philosophy, but it was not until 1687 when Sir Isaac Newton published his ‘Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica’ did it lay out an Aristotelian systematic study of nature and gave the whole enterprise a truly scientific approach and rigor. Even 200 years later it the term was commonly used. Natural Philosophy recognized itself as a creation of man and it also recognized its limitations and was self-correcting as it did not deal with the exotic world of the far off cosmos. In fact, it is only in the last 100 years did we begin to grasp and appreciate the universe beyond the galaxy proper.

Due to this limited vision there were many more basic and testable considerations; hypotheses, and theory via experiment were at its core.

It simply became more and more defunct almost due to the Einsteinian revolution. Natural Philosophy was a simpler paradigm with a great many unknowns, ones that we will need to reexamine, now, as the new Electrical Paradigm begins to take hold. The natural consequence of Eddington’s line of reasoning, becomes the basic grounding of the nuclear powered, gravity driven universe. That was the first nail in the proverbial coffin. This ground base was very reasonable, on the face of it. Schrodinger, Tesla and others disagreed with this idea and often argued that the idea that empty space contained something. Otherwise, they, and others, argued the electro-magnetic force would have nothing to act on and then what would light actually be waving? There was still the question of this aether. Was it there or not? Rational questions, to which some attempts were made to answer, but the arguments eventually ended. In the end the gravity dominant universe took shape and after Sir Edwin Hubble’s plot detailing the connection between apparent luminosity and redshift. This became known as a Hubble Constant.

P a g e 2 | 26

The Big Bang Cosmology was clearly in the running for the dominant paradigm and by the 1940’s, to any man abreast of scientific revolution, in the new paradigm, we clearly lived in an expanding universe.

Years prior, however, Eddington laid much of the groundwork, seizing onto the idea of variable time and mass bending space, he gave weight to the theory of Relativity, as Figure 3: The Hubble Plot of apparent velocity versus luminosity.. well as the blessing of the Royal Astronomical Society. He provided a mechanism by which the new power of crushing gravity, combined with the principles of Marie Currie’s radium, in balance, could be the source of all power to the Stars themselves; which under the former paradigm of natural philosophy, was a complete mystery. They thought they found a way to deduce, without direct observation, with the use of ‘must have been’ extensions which, at the time, could not be challenged, but today, are clearly falsified and certainly need reconsideration.

Eddington’s assumptions regarding Einstein’s insights provided the foundation of all that came later. The two assumptions that all of this hung on was that space itself was completely empty, and thus EM waves must carry their own medium, and that was adding to Einstein’s assumption of time and space are variable and malleable. Using logic Eddington added a third; that intense pressure can break the bonds of atoms and cause them to fuse. All were untested and almost experimentally untestable in the foreseeable future, conveniently.

Figure 4: Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.:

It was within Eddington’s lifetime, however, that this wall of assumptions began to show its first cracks. The same biased approach came back around to bite him in the form of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. Chandrasekhar was a student at Harvard and his number crunching ended up producing black hole theory, which Eddington rightfully opposed. He expressed disbelieve as a mathematicians artifice became “reality”. He recognized its absurdity, that dividing by zero gives crushing gravitational force, but there are natural fundamental limits before such things should be considered. However, it was directly through this same abstract mathematical deduction that P a g e 3 | 26

lead to the Big Bang Cosmology in the first place. It is well-reasoned, and well-postulated, and mathematically pretty, but it was born from assumption compounded upon other assumptions, and this leads up to where we are today.

I am not here to harm Eddington’s memory, he went with what he thought was real, but he was the first of the ‘fans’ of Einstein that have pervaded all of the sciences today. As admirable as the work that they both did was, we need to re-examine all of this and look at it with new eyes. We need to go back to the beginning. We need to ask new questions.

“If the universe is electrical in nature, and electrical forces are dominant, if Hannes Alfven and Donald Scott and Kristin Birkeland are correct, how does that change our view of what stars are made of? What makes a star a star or a planet a planet? How much do we really know about their creation or internal constituency?”

The Internal Constitution of Stars Taking Eddington’s work as a whole, we have a nuclear reaction forcing radiative pressure outward while countering the extreme force of gravity pushing it inward.

As of the 1940’s, to most everyone, eventually this is just how stars worked and it is, now, pretty much taken for granted.

This was deduced by using the assumption that “nothing else has the ability to do resist such crushing gravity except nuclear radiation”. Using a mathematically complex set of particular solutions to solve the problem of internal equilibrium that was necessary to balance the nuclear and gravitation forces, thus preventing collapse or explosion of the star, Eddington set to work on writing his masterpiece. By putting Figure 5: The Conventional Idea of the Sun's Internal Structure. The gravity in as a bending of space-time and Nuclear Furnace Model. divorcing it from cause and effect, conveniently makes it so no power is required to create it. This put all the working mechanisms completely out of sight. Fusion makes power, gravity crushes it, balance and light…. Like magic, the sun became a nuclear furnace.

P a g e 4 | 26

Using what we know of mass, gravity and inertia here on earth, astronomers can then determine the mass of the sun, and the planets. They take these constants and consider them universal.

These numbers give us the basis for why the sun is the apparent density of hydrogen/helium; why Jupiter and Saturn are so light as to be called “gas giants�; and, in addition, they grant us the ability to deduce what we think the inside of the earth looks like. We then start debating the nuances of planetary magnetic fields and so forth, thinking all the while these constants have granted us access to the answers.

This work will endeavour to show that this basic nuclear model is wrong, that it is built on prior assumptions and it needs to be discarded.

The Electric Solar System What is now understood about stellar and planetary creation from the latest findings from the Thunderbolts Project and the Electric Universe, stars and planets are made together in huge electro-magnetic pinches that pull in and compress various material into spheres, then these spheres begin to process electrons as an electric load on the stellar circuit.

Figure 6: A solar system in a high current Z-Pinch. (The Butterfly Nebula)

That really doesn’t do any justice to what is really going on; we must dig a little deeper. Let us look closely at how that process works.

One or more stars exist on this circuit and the circuits themselves are not as straight forward as you would imagine on a schematic. They are cellular structures, flowing with their own internal electromagnetic filamentary complexity, but they are clearly distinct and filamentary.

P a g e 5 | 26

The shape of most stellar sheathes are quite like the nebula above, but certainly not energetic enough that we can visibly see it like we can this nebula. This beautiful Butterfly Nebula is actually a magnetically wrapped tube of electric energy, but it has an electric load in the middle.

That little white dot in the middle is a whole solar system. Something in that system is processing electrons and turning them into light, heat and kinetic energy (spinning things). That twisting and contorting of the magnetic field is an electromagnetic pinch called a Z-Pinch. The “wings” of the butterfly are actually the parts of the Birkeland Current “tube” which is glowing due to the electric stress, and those polar “double layers” are almost like zones electrically isolating this load from the direct current. They represent large steps in voltage and Figure 7: The Basic Z-Pinch. they are responses to the stellar load.

Andre Marie Ampere discovered, in the 1820’s, the experimental evidence for electromagnetic attraction and repulsion. 70 years later from those basic beginnings, Hendrik Lorentz mathematically quantified the Electromagnetic force acting on any given point in the field or acting on any particle therein. This allows us today to calculate the actual electric forces involved in a solar system wide pinch. To envision how this works we use what engineers call “The Right Hand Rule.”.

Figure 8: The Right Hand Rule.

The right hand rule is a simple way to show the way electricity and magnetism react to one another. If you have a current going in a wire, in the direction of your right thumb, then the magnetic field is wrapping around the wire in the direction of your fingers.

If you can envision this and realize that plasma is not substantial, you must note that it is still coherent and can carry an electric current that will be wrapped in this field. The currents form from the long range attraction and short range repulsion that relates to Amperes Law and the Lorentz Force, and the pinch itself obeys them as well. These currents are called Birkeland currents and can only get so close to one another, if they get too close, the Lorentz force causes repulsion. Also, they cause any matter inside them to move, spin and get pulled along with the current itself. This happens due to what is called Marklund Convection. It makes the wonderful

P a g e 6 | 26

spiral shape we see naturally occurs with plasmas. This creates tubes of current twisting through space, occasionally creating plasmoids and pinches which pulls in material and magnetically compresses it together into stars and planets…

This is the power of the stars and the galaxies and even the power of creation itself. Once the pinches occur, then the solid surfaces they make automatically create electric fields altering the voltage of their surfaces. This in turn produces a “load”. In electrical terms this implies a “voltage drop”, which implies “energy being changed from one form to another”. It’s a place electrically where “stuff happens”.

Figure 9: Marklund Convection

The electric fields of our own star, the sun, causes what is conventionally called the heliopause.

It extends out beyond the orbit of Pluto and is it the extent of the Sun’s electrical environment, where, after that, the electric field of the Galaxy dominates. Our planet Earth has an electric field as well, and that field is completely wrapped in the field of the Sun. In fact, you, individually, have your own electric field, and it is completely wrapped inside the field of the Earth.

Each change in field represents a change in voltage, and a change in voltage is where work gets done.

Figure 10: Birkeland currents in extra-galactic space, forming galaxies and connecting them to one another.

P a g e 7 | 26

Electric Properties of Planets There are three important properties of all materials in Electro Magnetic theory. We use these three effects to build almost everything in the entire world that is based on electricity.

Firstly, no material is perfect at conducting electric current. Plasma is a great conductor, but not a perfect one. Even a piece of copper wire has what is called ‘resistance’. It is the opposite of ‘conductivity’. A piece of metal is more conductive than a piece of rock. Certain rocks and more conductive than other rocks… These properties change depending on temperature, density, purity etc. Resistance to electricity generates heat, light and radiation.

Secondly, there is a property of material to build up a charge. If this charge is close to another charge in the circuit, a certain property develops called ‘capacitance’. Capacitance is a measure of energy storage potential between two charges at different voltages. Since each star has a voltage drop, naturally there is a capacitance between surface of the star and the plasma it is wrapped in. On the Earth, the ground is at one voltage and the ionosphere above us is a completely different voltage.

This means there is a natural storehouse of energy right above our heads. Capacitors store energy like a spring, to be used when there is path to drain the charge.

Third, there is a property of magnetic material to respond to electricity flowing through it and create a magneto motive force. This gives rise to magnetic fields. By generating these fields, energy is transformed and it too can be a load on the circuit. This property is called ‘inductance’.

Inductance generates magnetic momentum and can store energy in the magnetic field it generates.

Figure 11: The Alfven stellar circuit. The electrons flow in at the poles and out along the elliptic of the sun creating the “Solar Wind”. Secondary currents and circuits are generated in this process creating the prominences and solar flares we see coming out of the sun. The footprints of these currents on the main solar surface are what give us sunspots. (Credit, Dr Hannes Alfven)

Each star is using all three of these. Each star has a current flowing through it due to the voltage across it. Each has a P a g e 8 | 26

resistance to the current it is in and therefore generates heat. Due to the resistive voltage drop it forms an electric double layer, which creates capacitance. Each star therefore has some possibly molten or semi molten parts which are conducting a current and inducing magnetic fields.

The brightness of a star is determined by its size, which influences the size of its electrical environment, and by the power of the current it is attached. This still doesn’t explain all planets.

Everything follows very specific rules, very clearly defined, easy to predict electrically… Going further, while the actual research is not done yet, let’s use deduction and see if these leftovers can be deciphered logically.

Sunspots on the Sun have been well studied for hundreds of years, they are dark blotches on the sun which start around the Sun’s equator and then move towards either pole slowly then dissipating at some point along the trek. Until recently, understanding that Figure 12: Sunspots and their parts. planets are following similar rules was considered to be accurate, but it was not until Ben Davidson’s work on “earthspots” did we begin to see the just how accurate. According to Ben, earthspots are the terrestrial equivalent of sunspots and behave in the same ways, electrically.

Electrically, these are areas where the solar capacitor, or the solar double layer is breaking down temporarily.

On Earth, earthspots do something similar, and are associated with areas of intense low pressure. These areas often become hurricanes, tropical storms and cyclones. Using Hannes Alfven’s and Donald Scott’s Electric model of the Sun, we can deduce the electric functioning of the Earth is likely very similar, but of lower current and voltage.

The Sun is being powered by the electric field of the Galactic Current Sheet and the Earth is being powered by the electric field of the Solar Current Sheet so a lower voltage is expected by virtue of simple deduction.

Figure 13: The electric solar environment broken into sections showing how the energy curve of the sun is entirely outside the sun itself, indicating that the power is coming from the outside in and not being generated within the sun itself and being pushed outward. (Credit, Dr Donald Scott)

P a g e 9 | 26

This means that the general structure of the Earth’s field should be similar to that of the Sun’s.

This means that planets and stars work in much the same way in each instance, and each moon, and each asteroid…

Regarding the variety of planets and asteroids, all of various shapes and sizes, some with magnetic fields and some without, some with atmospheres and some clearly barren, can we deduce where these atmospheres and fields come from? It can now be understood that they function as the stars do, which means they have those same three electric properties potentially.

At first glance, each planet, comet and asteroid in the solar system has a resistance to current greater than just space plasma, which means it has resistance. If it has resistance it has voltage drops, if it has voltage drops it has some capacitance. This means that every body in space that has a physical surface also has an electric field, which is a natural consequence of a solid body immersed in plasma. The closer one is to the Sun the denser the electric field strength, so the more electric potential of the body. All planets show effects of being in this field. Auroras, winds, dust storms, lightning, volcanoes, ‘glowing spots’ and ‘ion plumes’ occur on almost every planet and every moon. Even recently, NASA has announced the mysterious lights of an asteroid called Ceres.

Each planet, and most moons, in our solar system have some electrical manifestation on it or around it, but often the electric connection to all these events is ignored by Standard Model, whereas, as Figure 1412: The unknown spots on Cere's. you can see the same effects are likely happening.

The balls themselves only need to have different atmospheres, sizes, and compositions, therefore having subsequently different voltage drops to create the myriad of effects that occur on these planets and moons. A change in voltage means work is being done. Whether it be moving the air, causing a glow, deforming terrain or generating heat, if there is a voltage drop, something is happening.

What does seem to be significantly different for each planet is their inductances. Certain planets have a magnetic field, most do not. Why is that? Besides Mercury’s small field and Mar’s partial crustal field, only half the planets have magnetic fields.

We can assume at the beginning that ferrous materials are likely required. Iron and magnetism go hand in hand and since we have collected and studied iron meteorites that have fallen from space, it is clear that natural iron does exist and it is extremely permeable to magnetic fields.

That cannot be the whole story however, otherwise, every metallic meteor out there would have a massive magnetic field. Why are some larger than others? Why is only one of these fields actually in line with its angle of rotation?

P a g e 10 | 26

Figure 15: Planetary Magnetic Fields and their angles. Each magnetic field is more aligned to the solar current sheet than they are aligned to the pole planet they reside in. This makes the Earth’s magnetic field a rather lucky thing for magnetic navigation.

What this tells us is that they are not based on the rotation of a mass of iron at the core of these worlds. Four of these planets are supposedly made of gas, and the fifth planet, the Earth, has had its magnetic field that moves markedly every year. If the core of the planet started spinning in another direction, it would be felt on the surface of the planet by us humans in a devastating way.

It seems improbable that a mass of iron is spinning and doing this. This spinning iron theory is not congruent with the facts. However, we can rest assured some electrons must be spinning for certain, since there is a magnetic field present, and only electric currents generate magnetic fields. There are even more conundrums present of course, as iron is a fairly dense substance to have on a gas giant‌

Gravity That which is preventing us from moving forward is our preconceptions and biases. There is a conundrum and it is hinges on an assumption made long ago‌ Eddington began to deduce the internal constitution of the stars and planets by using certain set constants. The one we are most concerned with today is the one used to determine the material the planet is likely made of. That constant is gravity.

Eddington was meticulous and diligent, but he was an admirer/believer of Einstein and he owed him his relevance. Gravity and the idea that time and space could be bent by matter to produce this force was the key to his work. Without re-examining the assumptions that got a person to this point, the biases will creep in and taint the whole enterprise. This is not to say that he could P a g e 11 | 26

easily foresee the direction he was taking the whole world in 1919. He was doing his diligence, but his faith inspired others, like minded, seeking answers and truth and he, more than anyone else, including Einstein, changed the paradigm.

Gravity, or “Big G” as physicists like to joke, is the constant acceleration toward any body towards any other body (6.67 x 10-11 Newtons between two objects weighing one kilogram each and separated by one meter). Using this and assuming it is a universal constant, we go on to determine the Earth’s mass, the Sun’s mass, then the mass of all the planets. It seems fairly straightforward and practical. You can determine the forces acting on the planets and then determine the masses.

The issues that suddenly arose and became pronounced, were not predicted by this Standard Model… Until the math was done, we had no idea what planets were made of, we assumed that they were like our own planet and that was that. Once the maths were complete, we determined that the giant planets were so “light and fluffy” that one was even less dense than water… This was not predicted and came as a bit of a surprise. Once more, the Sun itself was shown to be incredibly light. So light it had to be mostly made of hydrogen, the lightest of all elements.

Per Eddington, the Sun being made of hydrogen and being incredibly light just made nuclear fusion more probable a mechanism. Within a few years a theory formed, the inconsistencies seemed to be answered, but this was just a glimpse of the larger problem.

The trouble is the theory of gravity, or more importantly, the complete absence of a theory.

Newton was very wise when making the “Law of Gravity” to say clearly he ‘frames no hypothesis’; which means to say he had no idea how this force originates or how it is produced.

Today, the Theory of Gravity is discussed as either a bending of space and time, or now, a new fad has it as a conglomeration of quantum effects. At the very least, to say gravity is understood in the conventional sense is laughable. Eddington himself based his work on his May 1919 observations, to prove Einstein was right, but today, 100 years later, we are still fumbling around in the dark regarding the nature of this mysterious force.

What Eddington did to prove that sufficiently massive objects actually bend space was to do an experiment where the known positions of stars are compared to an exact same picture of the same stars, but with the sun nearby. If the stars appeared to be shifted slightly towards the sun, then this was proof that sufficiently massive objects actually bend space. It’s very compelling on the surface, however, over time, problems began to arise. Firstly, all these instances of shifted lensing effects appear blue. Secondly, around Sagittarius A, the center of our own galaxy, where a massive black hole is apparently supposed to reside, we see no lensing. Thirdly, there is a much

P a g e 12 | 26

better explanation. Dr Ed Dowdye discovered convincing evidence that what we call gravitational lensing can be much better explained through the use of refraction of light going through plasma of different densities. This is well known and understood property which fits perfectly with our current electrical understanding of the universe and the plasma environment.

In the 1800’s, before Einstein, there were also attempts to understand gravity. The idea that gravity could be linked to Figure 16: Refraction in Plasma is a more accurate model for electromagnetism was even postulated by the images we see from space. (Credit, Dr Ed Dowdye) Michael Faraday. It is obvious to many that certain electric effects, like the electrostatic field between two capacitor plates is similar, mathematically, to gravity, albeit gravity is magnitudes weaker in scale. When working on such experiments, Faraday noticed that if you surround an object in a cage of wire, it is shielded from the effects of the electric field outside of the cage. Today, we use this effect to magnetically and electrically shield many electronic devices. It is also this effect that made us realize gravity is not electrostatic attraction. Faraday, however, believed this effect was the key…

“The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.” – Michael Faraday The “Universal Theory of Everything” is now a possibility coming into view as opposed to the three disparate theories, EM, Classical, and Quantum Theories, that are incongruent with each other. Today, 165 years later, that link has been discovered. A Theory of Gravity based on the Electric Nature of the Universe has been postulated.

It harkens back to the time of Natural Philosophy, where there needs more than one discipline taken into account. In simple terms, Wal Thornhill has proposed that the protons in the nucleus of an atom are pulled towards the negative plate of a body, the outside surface, and that alignment causes no flow of charge, so is not electromagnetic, it goes through all materials, and is not shieldable… This field is akin to a capacitance charge attraction, but obvious much weaker. Faraday also said, "Electrical capacity is to gravity, as inductance is to magnetism".

Figure 17: Wal Thornhill's Electric Gravity Model.

P a g e 13 | 26

If Faraday was correct then the energy stored in a planetary capacitor, naturally gives rise to this weak gravitational field, much like the atomic alignment of natural magnets are much weaker, potentially, than an electro-magnet.

This revolution in the understanding of gravity is the key to bridging the gap that Michael Faraday envisioned. With further experimentation it is now possible to measure and the relationship between charge and gravitational attraction. There are great implications for other sciences, however, in cosmology, this is a deathblow to standard theories. Suddenly, Eddington’s work is for naught, for the force of attraction between bodies is now a variable conditional on electrical potential and therefore the density of an object, and subsequently its material composition suddenly becomes indeterminate.

Gravity was the cornerstone of the big bang, the cornerstone of Eddington’s work on the internals of the stars, the planets and the key to the entire Big Bang Cosmological Theory. It is the reason for Black Holes, Neutron Stars and other mathematical constructions of thought… All of that is simply gone.

Dark Matter? Dark Energy? A misunderstanding taken too far? We no longer have to make up the extra missing mass, we simply need to understand how the capacitive field of planets and stars affect neutral atoms and to what degree. Given time and applying the well know electrical laws, I am sure we will get there, however, it is clear that study in this field is not going to come from the mainstream institutions. The shapers and keepers must begin the study of the universe anew.

“If we are not privy as to the internals of any world and if we know nothing of what makes up planets besides their electrical characteristics, then where can we look for clues to what is inside them?”

Hollow Planets What can we do to make sense of the Solar System we see? We can say clearly that some planets are containing iron, including the Sun, due to their magnetic field. Immediately, one must check their assumptions, perhaps all planets have iron but there is something else besides just iron?

How does a charged planet change things then? For one we no longer have to think of heavy iron masses being crushed in the middle of a planet. We can see two probable models of planet come into view, with room for more variations; one is solid and one is hollow.

P a g e 14 | 26

The solid planet would still have layers of charge much like it has layers of clouds, similar to an onion. The positive charge would migrate to the center core layer and there would be a negative outer planetary surface. It is primarily a capacitive planet as besides resistance, which any body has intrinsically. It also has internal charge separation, and therefore capacitance and an electric field based on this structure.

A hollow planet is a bit different, there would be Figure 18: A Spherical Capacitor. an internal surface. Normally this is counterintuitive, in the conventional Eddington model, but in the Thornhill model, it has merit. One thing that happens in the electric gravity model is that underground, central, internal pressure is not necessarily there. The nature of gravity being mathematically modelled as a point force implies, that with increasing depth we have increasing pressure, but this is not necessarily the case in the electric model. As one can see that in Wal Thornhill’s proposal, gravity is a surface effect and does not respond exactly as predicted by conventional theory once you move further from this surface. Although conventional science also says that pressure increases and density increases, we know now that this may not be the case and in fact according to the Thornhill model, there may be pushing gravity on the inside surface of the planet.

A positive internal surface of a molten iron pushing on itself across a hollow cavity…

In fact, the distinct possibility exists that the internal flow of ions along this surface, should the internal surface be iron, or at least, conductive, then it would generate a magnetic field and significant heat via induction via this mechanism. A hollow inner cavity pushing against itself and perhaps causing new material to be excreted upward, toward the surface.

Today, we have astronauts putting hollow air bubbles inside water, showing a simple proof of concept. It is an entertaining vision, but is it possible on a large sphere?

Clearly there is not a livable surface down there, by no means, but to think of it as a possible molten sea inside the earth? That could possibly be…

With this simple deduction it is possible to see that some Figure 19: A naturally existing hollow sphere. planets are hollow, at least, in theory. We also ascertained that this flow travelling inside iron would generate heat and magnetism, much as it does in a laboratory, however, iron does eventually melt. Also, via this theory, it becomes probable that the Earth itself is a hollow sphere as it has a fairly strong magnetic field.

What other observations can we make? What is considered “convincing evidence” now?

P a g e 15 | 26

What we are now faced with is to see if there is some evidence to indicate whether or not this is true. Besides the magnetic field of the Earth and its hot insides, is there anything else that lends credence to the theory? As we cannot travel or dig deep inside the earth there is only one way of looking inside the earth at the moment, via use of earthquakes.

Earthquakes Seismology is the study of earthquakes and the waves they produce. These waves travel through the planet and also along the surface. Waves that go through the planet are called “Pwaves” and those that travelling along the surface are “S-waves”. By studying these waves we can locate where the earthquake occurred and how deep it was, how powerful it was, and so on.

One other thing they do is take time to travel. By checking exactly how much time a wave takes to get from the earthquake epicenter to the surface on the other side of the world, we can also determine the relative density of the rock or substances the wave passed through. This data is used to back up the conventional theory of planetary constitution and creation, but does this data also help the case for electrical creation and construction, if seen from a different light?

Recently an alternate view of seismology has been proposed by Jan Lamprecht that does help clear up some possible misconceptions. The current P-wave propagation through the earth has been used as evidence of an increasing density as it passes a boundary called the outer core. At this point of depth, approximately 2900 kilometers below the surface of the planet, something happens. We know that the P-waves are refracting. Like any waves, when they change medium, they will refract. To the conventional theory, the density of this “outer core” is proved by this data and it is believed to be a nickel and iron mixture.

Obviously no one has actually been down there, so this is all based on theory and earthquake data.

There is a zone in like a ring on the opposite side of the planet from the earthquake, it is always there and has very few P-waves hit it from the earthquake in question. This zone is called the Figure 2013: Textbook example of the conventional model Shadow Zone, and it is said by the conventional 'proving' the denser outer core. theory that it is proof of refraction and therefore the change to a denser medium. Even though some P-waves do enter the Shadow Zone, they are considered just errant waves that still somehow make it into this zone. Also, somehow, waves going right straight through the core take a bit longer to get there, but that is just a minor detail; to men like Eddington this is all the proof that was needed. However, you will see, this is not the only explanation for this zone…

P a g e 16 | 26

Jan has shown that the conventional view may be in error, not with its data, but with its theory. Instead of showing the Earth has having a denser Outer Core, it is easier to change the Outer Core to a liquid, or at least, a less dense material.

To explain the P-waves behaviour, the refraction of the waves due to the change in density does not arc the wave’s path outward more, but actually inward. This solves two problems of the conventional theory. One is the delay that Pwaves have travelling to the opposite side of the planet, this is clearly due to the less dense medium, therefore slowing down the wave. The second is the Shadow Zone’s anomalous waves. They now occur predictably as some waves will invariably enter this zone due to the refraction of the waves by the Outer Core.

Figure 21: A Hollow Earth Model.

What exactly is going on down there? What does this material look like and what is it made of? We may never know of certain, but we have some clues. When looking at depth when earthquakes occur, we have data that indicates we have earthquakes down to at least 700 kilometers. The frequency of these quakes is also not linear, the earthquakes decrease steadily from the surface to about 300 kilometers and then stabilize and begin to rise again. This is not explained in any conventional theory to any satisfaction. If the crust is only supposed to be 30 kilometers thick why are earthquakes common down to this depth and what is causing the nonlinear distribution of the earthquake depths?

If you recall, in the aforementioned charged planet model, we noted that all planets act like a resistor and Figure 2214: Earthquake magnitude vs depth. a capacitor. The charge of the ground is negative, and the ionosphere is the positive plate 50 kilometers up into space and each cloud layer represents the bottom layer of a surface of more positive charge, going upward in stages. I suspect the same thing is occurring below the surface of the earth. As we progress down we eventually hit a layer which is another relatively positive layer at around 600 kilometers. The general increase in the conductivity of the Earth’s internal material is such that this occurs much farther from the surface of the Earth than the clouds are high in the sky, but the principle is the same.

This immediately implies that earthquakes are electrical in nature and are underground electric discharges as has been suggested by some in the past, but until now, we didn’t have any understanding of where they may fit in the circuit. Clearly they seem to be feeding charge to the more positive core area of our planet. In this model, they are expected to behave in this fashion.

P a g e 17 | 26

This idea of currents flowing through the planet are not new. In fact, it is quite old. Telluric Currents are the technical name for these natural flows of electricity within the earth. Our blindness to this concept today is paramount when we consider all “ground” to be equal, electrically; and indeed, much of it is, but some of it is not. This is something we do not consider. The nature of these currents are such that they begin to concentrate as the go downward. The ionosphere is larger in area than the surface of the planet, the surface is large in area than the outer core, and much better insulated, this is not fluid like the air, or oceans, this is solid rock. We can imagine the current flowing through this strata getting concentrated and liquefying rock pathways that begin to get more tangled as we travel downward towards the Outer Core.

At this point, the Outer Core, the material gets less dense. There are only three explanations.

The first is that the material is fundamentally different in composition than that of the structure of the strata above it. The second is the material is porous, but of similar material. The third of which is that the material is the same as that above it, but liquefied. It could also possibly be a combination of all three, but let us stick with some measure of simplicity for now.

A description of a fundamentally different material would be something that would be less dense than iron/silicate rocks. An internal crystalline structure may exist inside the earth, but this has the disadvantage of having no mechanism of generating a magnetic field, so it may not be a good first choice, at least, for the Earth.

A porous pitted rock iron surface could also be there. This could carry a magnetically inductive current giving rise to our magnetic field, and also explaining the lessened density of this Figure 23: ‘Fulgurites’ of former burrowing electric currents. outer core. But, this still does not seem to account for the apparent heat that would be generated with this flow of electricity through the planet in a concentrated area.

A liquid Outer Core of molten iron would solve the issues of the planet having inductance. The problem becomes, with pushing gravity on the positive inner surface, shouldn’t a liquid fall towards the center and stay there? It may be that there is actually a mechanism that prevents it.

The surface would naturally be repulsed by the positive surface on the other side of the cavity.

This could be a very plausible scenario to keep much of the material from being pushed off, plus I suspect that the internal weather of that cavity would be extremely violent and torrential.

P a g e 18 | 26

Our World We can now see a clearer version of our world. A ball seething with energy, a plasma ionosphere, with a dielectric atmosphere, an insulative silicate crust with water just below the surface, combined with tubes of current that, when they arc to a new spot inside the earth, they seem to create earthquakes, burrowing towards the surface of an inner sea of molten iron….

Some material falling upwards out of this sea into perhaps a toroidal tempest of melted and gaseous silicates spinning in an induced electric field. It is even possible that we have a small sphere of material spinning inside the core itself instead of a cavity with just plasma. As the Pwaves cannot travel through empty space there is no way to know for certain, but once we examine the magnetic field of the earth in detail we may notice anomalies that will help solve that riddle. We will likely never know for sure what is inside any world, unless, perhaps, a planet blows up near us and we get to take a look inside it… Not likely to happen in the near future, we hope.

One thing we do know of sure is that if the earth has a cavity with any inner surface, then the immediate implication is that the Earth has somehow expanded to accommodate this cavity. The pushing gravity in the center of a planet is a clear mechanism to create and sustain a cavity and by the varying of current through the planet, the expansion of this cavity could have been set in motion. One cannot escape that the possibility, but did it happen this way and what do these “tectonic plates” then signify in an Electric Paradigm? Why did they occur in those areas?

There are some answers to these questions. We know that crustal continental rocks tend to be silicate based, higher insulators with lower conductance, relative to the oceanic crustal rocks which are high in iron and mostly denser basalt rock. This difference in density led to the idea that the continents were thin “floating” layers and the basaltic rocks would slide under them in a process called “subduction”. In this way the Earth’s ocean floors were remade. However, if you look at a crustal age chart of the ocean it is clear this is not the case:

Figure 24: The NOAA Oceanic Crust Age as dated by conventional theory.

P a g e 19 | 26

In the middle of every ocean is new material, or at least, younger material. These dates are determined via radioactive decay rates and such, so they need to be re-examined in the new Electric Model of Radiation, but they do provide the relative ages and clearly, an unbiased mind would see an expanding sphere cracking its crust apart as it grew larger over time. This new metallic basaltic material seems to be pushed up through the ocean floor at these mid-ocean ridges. This is also a perfect circuit conduit for oceanic electric currents as sea water is fairly conductive. We should expect to see volcanos form at the edges of these oceans as they will become focus points of electricity attempting to enter or exit the Earth’s surface. This could be a perfect explanation for volcanism. Dormant volcanos are just ones where the current is no longer travelling down the discharge tube into the earth. Suddenly old questions disappear and new questions arise. Further investigation is required, as we only began to scratch the surface of what this means…

As compelling as this is, it is not enough to know for certain. What is required for some semblance of fact is to compare this to other things in nature. Is there anything analogous to what we are describing in nature?

Geodes and Concretions The earth itself is not a perfect sphere. It is technically an “oblate spheroid” as it bulges around the middle. What most of you do not know, is that it also has a polar configuration akin to many Geodes. On the “north” side of a Geode, there is often a slight divit or depression, and on the opposite side there is a raised area. Sometimes you can even find long tubular geodes that have exaggerated examples of these characteristics.

The Earth itself has an ocean at its northern pole, the Arctic Ocean, and a spiraling continent on its southern pole, Antarctica. This is analogous to geodes and we should therefore consider it an important clue to not only the internals of the earth, but the violent formation of geodes in the Electric Universe paradigm.

The location on this geode where the “crust” is the thinnest is exactly where on Earth we have the auroras and the jet streams. This may impact the nature of our Figure 25: A geode standing on its northern pole. planet’s electrical behaviour internally, and not just electrically pulling around ionic winds in the stratosphere.

P a g e 20 | 26

Not unlike an arc welding machine sputtering little round specs of dust and slag as it fuses metal together, geodes and concretions seem to be a combination of a similar effect only the electrical current through a geode was sustained for such a time that a transmutation of the elemental particles seems to have occurred. The other possibility is that extremely high current/voltage drew out material from the outer crust of the geode and pulled it in the crystal structures we see inside them.

Figure 26: Welding splatter under a microscope.

For concretions it seems that the slightly different materials may play a role, but the duration of the strike seems to have been less. Perhaps geodes represent something occurring underground with more thermal insulation and inability to be “flung” away from the electric current that formed it. If it was even a few feet under the ground, it would be stuck there, simply a part of the discharge pathway. Since this is an unknown, we will focus on looking at concretions and other stone spheres/thunder eggs.

Concretions are found all over the Earth and even her sister planets it seems. Concretions also have other interesting properties that geodes don’t have. Some appear to have been made of different material, or even different concretions, and then crushed together to form a new, larger sphere. This lends the possibility that we have not considered, a non-homogenous Earth made of many former spheres. Normally this would mean little but what if the two materials were significantly different electrically?

Figure 28: A concretion with an off centered core. Could this explain off center magnetic fields?

Figure 27: A solid concretion with a core of different material.

Earlier ideas in the realm of Natural Philosophy there was a theory that the Earth’s interior was made of large continental sized chunks/spheres of material that were brought together and are now separated by volcanic ridges. These spheres have been formed into a larger sphere which they are now a part of; the Earth itself. This sphere was then coated by more silicates and thus, the Earth was constituted.

P a g e 21 | 26

Even during the Victorian era, it was becoming clear that the volcanism around the pacific was noteworthy and it could not be ignored. Some thought that the ring of fire was a result of the interactions between these multiple incongruous masses before forced into a new amalgam.

Now, today, we can see that those volcanos may be there simply because of the shape of the Earth and the size, and flatness, of the Pacific Ocean and all the electrons that need to be processed along their circuitous route through the Earth. Concretions may lend credence to this theory.

The layering and flaking of the silicates here in this concretion to the right shows such a form can occur in Figure 29: A Ridged concretion. nature. It has raised ridges of a different, stronger material. Material that used to coat the other spheres which were then crushed into this larger sphere, becoming a part of it. To the left is a concretion with very thick coatings that is comprised of different composite sections combined together. The material seems to be some type of granite or something Figure 30: A concretion with thicker ridges of crystal material. else with a high crystal content. Both of these seem to be convincing, but what about the high iron content of the planet? Do other materials form these repeatable patterns in these concretions?

On this page is a series of concretions with iron ridges that seemed to be formed it the same way as the other ones. It seems there were many silicate spheres which were then coated in iron and then crushed together in a large pinch and were formed into a larger sphere that likely then dropped to the earth semi-molten and was deformed by the impact. On some, we can clearly see these are not just surface features, they continue deep into the concretion.

P a g e 22 | 26

We see a new model of the Earth coming into view now. We have a clear analogous representation for resistive and capacitive planets, and we see that with the potential magnetic properties of conductive rock and even iron, there is reason to suspect another mechanism for volcanism. This does seem to imply that the Earth is not quite like other planets and has properties mostly shared with the planetary gas giants who are now much likely to be rocky/metallic bodies themselves and only appear to be made of such light materials as gas.

We know that Mars has no magnetic field of significance but has an apparently high iron content. The only other planets to have a magnetic field are the larger planets, and the Sun itself. Clearly, the magnetic field requires something more than just iron. If the theory is correct, it certainly needs this aforementioned cavity to produce a toroidal counter flow within the planet in question. For this statement to have any merit we need to see concretions with silicates, with iron coatings crushed together and hollow.

Do such concretions exist?

Yes they do, and in large numbers‌ Some are called the giant stone balls of Costa Rica. Here are some examples of these huge stones showing clearly the sandstone base, and the iron coating of each of these smaller spheres and even a thick silicate coating on top.

P a g e 23 | 26

These spheres are analogous to planetary construction and this is the structure of our planet, Earth. Each planet’s insides are no longer a complete mystery, but possibly a scientifically verifiable and falsifiable electrical construction with experimentally replicable characteristics.

We only need to determine a few facts about the planet and we should be able to determine with more and more accuracy the general layout of the internal constitution of each. The effects that made the planets also power and made the stars. Therefore I am proposing nothing different from this proposal for all stars as well. Stars, like our sun are not hydrogen. They may have an atmosphere of hydrogen, but they are not made of the gas itself. They must have a surface, and they must have layers. A solid sun, with a hollow area in the center it predicted by this theory.

The only difference between the moons, planets and stars in this theory are their individual sizes and internal constituency which therefore controls how many electrons they attract and process.

Electricity flows through the path of least resistance and the sheer surface area of the Sun makes it a very convenient conduit compared to any other planet in our system.

Stellar Parentage Besides the Sun and the largest planet with the same rotational alignment, Jupiter, it is reasonable to think that each planet was birthed from interactions between the Sun and the planets or between planets and planets, or are just interlopers that the Sun has acquired on its journey. To make Jupiter, it is possible that another passing star interacted with the Sun to draw out stellar material, but it is more likely that at some time in the past, the Sun received too much current from the galactic circuit and had to create more surface area to process all the electrons.

To do that the Sun would fission and eject out a part of its insides and form a planet. However, after this any close interactions have the potential to make planets and moons within the material excavated and pulled off the surface of the parent planets.

This means we have some ability to take up the task of determining the parentage of each planet individually. Since each planet has a parents of sorts. Most are made up of the two planets which interacted and depending on their individual constituency they will make different children.

How a new planet forms, and should be categorized by, is comprised of three main factors: 1) Constituent Parentcy. What are the constituent parents made from? The main bulk of material that makes up the planet will be pulled from both parent planets. This will form the base material that the new planet will be made from. Since no two planets are exactly the same then it stands to reason that each planet created will be slightly different in construction, but should be similar in constituency as its siblings. (Those that formed during the same electrical event.)

2) Voltaic Charge/Current Characteristics/Frequency. Which parent is positive and which parent is negative? What frequencies and current is the formation discharge exhibiting? This combines with number 1 to determine the overall layout of the possible combinations. The P a g e 24 | 26

material is pulled from one parent to the other, but even in the mostly, one directional pull, there is a pull from the other parent planet as well. Does this give you a planet of mostly silicates, coated in a veneer of metal as many concretions seem to suggest; or does it give you a planet of mostly metal with a veneer of silicates as other concretions seem to suggest?

3) Birthing Process. Not all planets are created equal, the mechanism which comes to make a planet is not unlike the difference between geodes and concretions. If you have a concretion which is simply rounded silicates, in a lower voltage pinch the result would be different than a concretion which experienced destruction and reconstitution several times during its birthing event. Do you have simply a sphere coated in another material, or a conglomeration of similarly coated spheres pinched together? Perhaps geodes can only be formed in underground or surface discharges, so therefore there is no possibility of a planet actually being a geode, but it does not preclude the possibility of giant geodes making up parts of this world stuck deep beneath continents.

Figure 31: A volcanoes 'Magma Chamber'.

It is possible that new fresh geodes are being formed now in and around what we call “volcanoes”.

Volcanoes are filled with positively charged lava pushed out/pulled out of cracks in the earth and below this lies a giant magma chamber. Certainly it has an axial configuration, and we do find crystal caverns near these magma chambers… Perhaps it is a conduit through the surface of the earth where, even today, electric currents are flowing and powering that chamber cooking us a future geode?

This is clearly a new area of study to be explored and the merits of this classification are noteworthy, but the method is hypothetical at best.

Today we are working on constructing a viable Electric Geology model and, of which, this is only a subset. Indeed, this is just an introduction into the big questions the new Electric Universe Theory brings to Geology. The constitution of our planet is clearly not what mainstream science tells us. We are able to now formulate questions that were not even possible even 10 years ago.

In that short span of time, earnest people, working mostly on their own, have come together to write the future of this paradigm. While I may philosophically deduce the rational questions of the new way of planetary creation, others are experimenting and gathering data, with no expectation of reward. Once the paradigm changes, you cannot go back. You can only remember what it was like, but you will never experience it again. The Big Bang Model falls flat in comparison to this Electro Magnetic vision….

P a g e 25 | 26

To end, there is the possibility of what we learn in the next few years of experimentation into geology and planetary creation will alter the course of the future. The determination of this paradigm to persevere even though it is contrary to the Standard Model is akin to Galileo’s struggle when the Priests of his day refusing to look into his telescope 400 years ago. It shows that the evidence and the truth are not paramount in their institutions. If it was, there would be invitation to debate, not an invitation to deride. It is a strange day when science becomes religion of high priests, as opposed to a method of investigation.

It seems nature, mythology, archaeology and a myriad of other disciplines have been trying to tell us something for centuries, and all the while we refused to look at the evidence lying right before us.

Figure 32: An electrically expanded concretion?

Let us change that. It is time.

“We live in an electric world. Our cities are visible from space at night, blazing with electric lights. The electricity courses invisibly in the darkness over great distances along thin power lines. We find electricity indispensable. Nature does the same since all matter is electrical. Yet astronomy is stuck in the gas-light era, unable to see that stars are simply electric lights strung along invisible cosmic power lines that are detectable by their magnetic fields and radio noise.” – Wal Thornhill

P a g e 26 | 26