Alfven Galactic Circuit Model (No Music)

[@senatorjosephmccarthy2720]

Thank you Much for not playing the distracting music. The information was presented in an understandable manor. Appreciated.

[@013taras]

This is an episode voiced with such astute perception of dealing with both sides of the coin Ergo cosmology To give and with nuance This is so awkward by those who are so adamant And to this is freedom to us that know this truth Bring back science for this age; enough!

[@rxbracho]

I am super thrilled that you have retaken this topic! I was starting to make my way over your old videos, in particular about the electric model of the sun and I wondered if the project you mentioned (thunderbolt?) is still being pursued. As you succinctly put it, the gas model for stars simply doesn't work, and the liquid model of Robitaille, expanded in Unzicker's book, doesn't cut it either (as you pointed out). Thank you for exploring alternative explanations that elude mainstream science.

[@SeethePattern]

Well I re-uploaded this one as the video going out later refers to the galactic circuit model so I wanted to release the old video without the music.

[@rxbracho]

@@SeethePattern Thank you again. 🙏

[@nadahere]

Dr. Robitaille's latest Sun model now posits a solid core/surface of planar metallic hydrogen. This may then account for the precession of Mercury, nullifying Onerock's theories == 🤜⚡💥⚡🤛Anyone interested in promoting EU concepts and/or doing R&D should consider joining the Lunar Science Innovation Consortium [LSIC] and/or Lunar Surface Science Workshop [2024 event occurring soon]. Anyone can join, it's free, a great opportunity to meet the top people in space fields and it's fun. I used to submit Abstracts at these and other space forums [which link from these two forums] but am too preoccupied for the near future, developing new technologies.

[@forrisvourvopoulos3252]

Thank you, sir. I've come across yr channel and I'm impressed with your agreement if I can use the 'expression' with Lerner, Alfen, and the rest.....my understanding is that u thinking while you narrowed the videos and processing which I do appreciate alot. Please keep coming back, as some of us thoughts and observations agree with the above. 🙏☺️👌

[@AbsurdityViewer]

Came for the no music... Stayed for the fine content.

[@BradleyAndrew_TheVexis]

As always great stuff!

[@lmwlmw4468]

Great video.

[@patrickdonnelly5223]

electrons are what we create when we seek to identify them. They are standing waves, born of reflection of the incoming energy. They are usually doubled.

[@jackfrost2978]

It seems to me. The returning flow maybe likely to twist with the rotation of the galaxy. Possibly creating a several other dynamic effects. Maybe that return at the along the disc of the galaxy. Is what helps hold them together. The poles being anchor points and the equatorial return zone. Countering the effect of spin trying to throw out the mass of the galaxy.

[@philoso377]

Nice video and presentation. If I understand the narrative we are suggesting Alfvén’s modeling a perpetual motion electromechanical engine.

[@JoeDeglman]

Actually, the aurorae are not completely driven by just the solar wind. It is indeed charged particles from the solar wind that causes the aurorae. However, The auroral circuit is an energy exchange between the magnetosphere and the ionosphere. The Dungey Cycle. The auroral circuit is driven by the sunlight impinged on the day side of the magnetosphere/ionosphere and the magnetic pressure difference between the day/night side of the planet creates a magnetic pressure difference which drives the energy exchange between the ionosphere and the magnetosphere, at the polar region. The aurorae light up when charged particles are caught in the magnetic circuit, but the charge particles from the solar wind are first caught in the magnetopause/ tail then cross feed or back feed towards the polar regions.

[@Kaimelar8]

Great video, thanks!

[@epockismet76]

It's like trying to put into words the nature of the particles within plasma from a perspective where is can be perceived visually. There is a blurriness to nature that scales right along with electric/plasma structures and the plasma it is made from. It's as if plasma creates itself from itself, or something does. Or it's like a chicken or egg scenario, as if the structures being discribed don't always exist. Very intetesting video 😄✌️ Without the moving/changing plasma, there are no structures, or matter, meanwhile charged matter and plasma are created within and around matter from endless change/time. Seeing them separately seems a function of the observer's senses, and the physical form that houses it, and it starts to sound like the old discussions philosophers had about existence 🤪

[@vapormissile]

So, what is your theory about *why* we've been systematically misled about this?

[@Orion15-b9j]

We are systematically misled about everything and we have to find sources of correct information. In the case, probably the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" will do the job.

[@nadahere]

Lamestream science is ignorant and have too much vested to change and soil their reputation. Done!

[@raycar1165]

-Breaking the Science Barrier -Playlists -Further Info -Breaking the Science Barrier: The Electric Universe’s Bold Push Against “Big Science” (Full Movie)

[@markbarber7839]

Thanks for the video. I can't help but wonder if a new form of space travel wouldn't be possible by hitching a ride on these electric currents?

[@SeethePattern]

An intriguing idea. Not sure how it would work and in Alfven model you would have to be somewhat concerned about crossing the double layer and the effect this would have on your craft. I also think that parts of the current won’t actually flow that fast.

[@multi_misa72]

Cant help but notice that this diagram of a sun/ galactic cirquit is actually a 3D double torus structure..maybe vortex based mathematics has something to say about it..proponents of it seem to clame so..i found it fascinating for sure..thanks for annother interesting video.👌

[@DANTHETUBEMAN]

what would you expect to see with two Galaxy's running in to each other?!

[@flyfin108]

look up into night sky, we are in a middle of it. the milkyway you see is not actually galactic plane but one leg of the brown dwarf galaxy, google it

[@raycar1165]

It might look like a choreographed dance where no body can crash into another. But the the interactions lead to a rearrangement taking place. And complete surface destruction on the interfacing sections.

[@cold3lectric]

charge repulsion, making everything slippery, and many thunderbolts/arc discharges

[@chrissoares6288]

I wonder if the vastness of the universe plays a part in driving the energy of the universe - that local events separated by huge distances, and therefore time, is like a dog chasing its tail. At any point in a hugely scaled up circuit there would be no "instantaneous" information about other far away parts of the same circuit, yet the circuit would exist and function.

[@flyfin108]

thank you very very much

[@mccoytg1]

Does the rotating mass of the galaxy act as a giant flywheel having precession?

[@childofkhem1.618]

This video hits when I'm in the middle of reading a new science of heaven by Robert temple. Getting rid of the ether, a plasma superfluid of potential charge makes no sense.

[@JoeDeglman]

Such a circuit might work well for a galaxy, but perhaps not for the solar system. A galaxy rotates as a rotational vortex, while a solar system rotates as an irrotational vortex. This indicates that a galaxies rotational energy is at equilibrium with the input energy it gets from the Cosmic Web. One thing Alfven did not foresee is that galaxies are fed by an input current from the Cosmic Web, and rotation is caused by a Lorentz force from the incoming current. But the Sun, for example, releases stored energy and is not at equilibrium as far as input vs output. The Thunderbolts Project estimates the input power to the Sun as about 1 billion amperes, but the Sun's output energy is estimated at about 1 trillion amperes by NASA probes. Our Sun's output energy will overpower any such Alfven Circuit. Any anode-cathode situation proposed by Don Scott is far too weak to overpower the stored energy released by the Sun's photosphere.

[@SeethePattern]

I don’t disagree with your logic but do we really see an input current from the cosmic web? I would argue that what we see as the cosmic web is an imprint that we assume was a structure. When we examine galaxies we generally see that they are outputting material although Peratt makes the interesting point that even that might be an illusion.

[@JoeDeglman]

@@SeethePattern 'Spiraling Filaments Feed Young Galaxies' July 01, 2019 New data from the Keck Observatory show gas directly spiraling into growing galaxies.... - Cal Tech

[@JoeDeglman]

@@SeethePattern 'The Origin of Matter at the Base of Relativistic Jets in Active Galactic Nuclei' Gustavo E. Romero, Eduardo M. Gutiérrez I submit that the relativistic jets are due to an overpressure of magnetic flux storage in the core of the ring current of a galaxy. An 'Active Galaxy' is just a result of an overpressure of the magnetic flux storage ability in the center of the plasmoid. Such jets are neutral and do not contain charge particle flow until the jet impinges upon on the surrounding environment of the jets.

[@DavidGreen-n1s]

For all "WE" have learned thus far, the END will ALWAYS be a "SURPISE"❤

[@yupyup6599]

I am a firm believer that the curveture of spacetime is actually the curveture of rotation that all things travel on since nothing travels in a straight line

[@nadahere]

It's doubtful the Uni/space has curvature as Onerock's theories have been disproven by many in various ways. Here is my relevant reply to @rxbracho's comment : Dr. Robitaille's latest Sun model now posits a solid core/surface of planar metallic hydrogen. This may then account for the precession of Mercury, nullifying Onerock's theories == 🤜⚡💥⚡🤛Anyone interested in promoting EU concepts and/or doing R&D should consider joining the Lunar Science Innovation Consortium [LSIC] and/or Lunar Surface Science Workshop [2024 event occurring soon]. Anyone can join, it's free, a great opportunity to meet the top people in space fields and it's fun. I used to submit Abstracts at these and other space forums [which link from these two forums] but am too preoccupied for the near future, developing new technologies.

[@patrickdonnelly5223]

Polarity of the AC supplying power to the local stars is the square of the sunspot cycle ... not thousands of years, merely hundreds. The Bethlehem Star is a timer for the motor driving the system. December 2020, was the last. 30 years for miracles?

[@Mantramurtim]

Thank You!!

[@Fish-ub3wn]

i know it is hard to narrate these concepts, i'm struggling the same. but please write a script first, making it is more digestible... also, a second and third animation might help. i'm a graphic, contact in my channel's description.

[@SeethePattern]

This is a very old video, that I removed the music from and re-uploaded as I am referencing it from my new video.

[@AckDue]

Is a 'unipole' and a 'monopole' the same?

[@nadahere]

Typically yes but language and individual mastery/usage is fluid [not concrete] so inconsistencies occur.

[@t00by00zer]

Galaxies are formed like a solar system, as in a plasma pinch.

[@SeethePattern]

That’s sort what Peratt’s model of a galaxy is. Not quite a z-pinch but two filaments twisted together squeezing the space between it.

[@alex79suited]

Remember to keep the 2 property separate. Their not of the same origin. Peace ✌️ 😎.

[@jamesmacdonald5556]

I'm going to lose a few brain cells over this one. What came first the chicken or the egg? How do we get rotation on the Earth? Coriolis effect but Galaxy rotation seems to be random. First there is rotation, then static charge, current then plasma??? This would suggest to me there is an ether to create the static charge.

[@t00by00zer]

Galaxies, stars and planets, are all powered by plasma from the outside. Spin is a property of current/plasma. Right hand rule.

[@Yuri_Panbolsky]

Yes - "Cosmic Ether-Drift and Dynamic Energy in Space Bibliography and Resources" James DeMeo: "Dayton Miller's Ether Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look" Stephan Gift "A Modern Approach to Space-Time Physics" "Tests of the One-way Speed of Light Relative to a Moving Observer" "Einstein’s principle of relativity and cosmic-ray muon decay" "Detection of the Ether Using the Global Positioning System"

[@rudypieplenbosch6752]

When mass gathers, due to gravity, you get rotation for free, because a vortex is the most optimal way to get mass towards a centre. Due to non perfections, the vortex always gets a direction that gets amplified by more mass falling inwards increasing the vortex's power and attracting more mass, the spinning magnetic field comes naturally with it.

[@t00by00zer]

@@rudypieplenbosch6752 There must be a NET angular momentum for vortex to form from gravitational accretion. Thankfully, Plasma provides for it's own spin.

[@rudypieplenbosch6752]

@@t00by00zer The vortex starts long before there is plasma, the direction is decided due to imperfections when the vortex starts, When it grows its direction gets anchored more and more, due to the additional accrued mass, naturally all charged particles that become part of the vortex, contribute to the, quasi, rotating magnetuc centre, as discussed in the video.

[@MrWolynski]

Do a talk on stellar metamorphosis, or the theory that stellar evolution is planet formation and astronomers are wrong. Planets are just highly evolved/dead stars, and stars are very young planets.

[@nadahere]

This idea may or may not be accurate. Some, like myself, posit that planets can be created during stellar formation or they may later be ejected from stars potentially due to occasional energy flux that impinges on them. See Dr. Robitaille's latest Sun model [video at Solid Bodies and Mercury: The Perihelion Precession Explained! ] which now posits a solid core/surface of planar metallic hydrogen. This may then account for the precession of Mercury, nullifying Onerock's theories. My derivative corollary is that the upwelling of the intercalate layers can cause mass ejecta which then form planets and other objects. == 🤜⚡💥⚡🤛Anyone interested in promoting EU concepts and/or doing R&D should consider joining the Lunar Science Innovation Consortium [LSIC] and/or Lunar Surface Science Workshop [2024 event occurring soon]. Anyone can join, it's free, a great opportunity to meet the top people in space fields and it's fun. I used to submit Abstracts at these and other space forums [which link from these two forums] but am too preoccupied for the near future, developing new technologies.

[@Contrarian-ol2bc]

You're getting better, only one reference to that ridiculous 'thunderbolts project'.

[@djackson006]

Your vid didn’t appear on my feed. Un-subbed and re-subbed.🎉

[@SeethePattern]

It's not a new video as such I just removed the music as I was referencing from the new video I published, so I did not publish this one 'as such' just uploaded and linked from my other video. Sorry for the confusion

[@MegaBanne]

Plasma physics uses his mistake. Ideal MHD does not apply to anything real. MHD applies to when there is an atmosphere thick enough to behave like a fluid and the levels of ionization are too low to undermine the existence of hydrodynamic properties.. The concept of ideal MHD is dumb It is MHD applied to a case when there is no hydrodynamic properties what so ever, since the system is ideal. The ideal case is when there is no MHD at all. When ionization is so high that hydrodynamics disappears from the plasma. The plasma physics used by astronomers have no root in reality what so ever.

[@aesops-ghost7756]

The electric universe doesn't match any of our models. And it certainly does not match observational data

[@raycar1165]

@aesops-ghost7756 It certainly does match observational data. Intrinsic Redshifts in Quasars and Galaxies H. Arp Max-Planck-Institut fu ̈r Astrophysik, Karl Schwarzschild-Str.1, Postfach 1317, D-85741 Garching, Germany C. Fulton School of Physics, the University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley 6009 WA Australia D. Carosati Armenzano Astronomical Observatory, 06081 Assisi (PG), Italy ABSTRACT We report a cluster of quasars that has 21 of its members at redshift z = 2.149 within a range of only ±.019. It has an extension across the sky of ≥ 3.2 degrees. At its conventional redshift distance it would have a huge diameter of 249 Mpc. The front and back should reflect the expansion of space of about 13, 700 km/s, but measured velocities within the cluster are only of the order of 1, 000 km/s. A previously catalogued, compact galaxy lies near the cluster center. When transformed into thr rest frame of this galaxy of origin the quasar cluster redshift is z0 = 1.96, which is exactly the most prominent Karlsson peak redshift! We explore bright galaxies in this region and find they typically have companions at the Karlsson peak periodicity, including NGC 7361 with many physical companions at the lowest Karlsson peak periodicity of zK = .06. A sampling of similar groupings of companions around other bright spirals shows the same abundance of redshifts, zK = .06 (±.01). From the large numbers in this transition stage from quasar to galaxy they could be said to form a major constituent of the universe. Most importantly, it is found that when high redshift quasars are linearly paired across a galaxy that their intrinsic redshift can be measured directly as it splits into two oppositely directed components. The intrinsic redshift of the ejected quasars falls uncannily close to the predicted Karlsson peaks - within ±.01. It is argued that data going back to 1968 confirm that quasars are ejected and evolve in luminosity and redshift into normal galaxies which lie on or near the classic Hubble relation. Subject headings: galaxies: active - galaxies: individual (AM 2230-284, NGC 7361, NGC 7793, NGC 4410, UM 341, NGC 4151) - quasars: general

[@undernetjack]

Making a statement like this, you are either trolling, or you are playing dumb intentionally like flat earthers.

[@undernetjack]

This theory is the only one that actually explains what Is observed simply.

[@forrisvourvopoulos3252]

As Wolfgang E. Poly would say: You Not Even Wrong!

[@TrusePkay]

It does not have to because it is superior to today's unsuccessful models