How did the Solar System form in an Electric Universe?

Let's explore Hannes Alfven's theory on the formation of the Solar System. There are two mainstream models which both do not take into account the electro-magnetic force. Hannes Alfven shows a very simply model which could explain why the outer planets posses most of the angular momentum, why there is such a difference between the inner and outer planets and a very interesting link between the moon and mars.
For those interested here are the links to the 3 papers:
adsabs.harvard....
adsabs.harvard....
adsabs.harvard....
Follow me on:
/ seethepattern
/ patternseethe
Support me on:
/ seethepattern
www.paypal.me/...
#electricuniverse #plasmauniverse #seethepattern

[@Sulucnumoh420]

You're work is so detailed, assiduously cited, and criminally underrated. Love your work man

[@MrHichammohsen1]

Is this the most underrated video on youtube?!

[@PaulMetrich]

No there are several THUNDERBOLTS PROJECT THAT ARE EVEN BETTER

[@MrHichammohsen1]

@@PaulMetrich example?

[@PaulMetrich]

@@MrHichammohsen1 THUNDERBOLTS OF THE GODS/ SYMBOLS OF ALIEN SKY PART TWO IS REAL GOOD IF U LIKE MARS/ HANDBAG OF THE GODS/ CRACKS IN THEORY/ THERE ALL FREAKING TOP NOTCH BETTER THAN 90 PERCENT OF THE VIDEOS OUT THERE

[@PaulMetrich]

@MrHichammohsen1 MEGALITHIC CHEMISTRY/ COSMIC LIGHTNING ON THE MOON

[@PaulMetrich]

@MrHichammohsen1 ENIGMA OF THE GRAND CANYON/ UFOS~PLASMA/ ELECTRIC VOLCANOS

[@daviddrew7852]

"The peer review system is satisfactory during quiescent times, but not during a revolution in a discipline such as astrophysics, when the establishment seeks to preserve the status quo." Hannes Alfven

[@Chris.Davies]

Except there isn't really an establishment. No one "decides" what is right. No panel determines what "scientific doctrine" is. Hannes was perhaps thinking of religion, and how facts don't matter to it.

[@daviddrew7852]

@@Chris.Davies It's all about the consensus (the current thing), and peer pressure. This culminates with Peer Review. I recommend Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to get a handle on this problem, and its well documented history. Shift happens, but paradigm shifts take time.

[@lowersaxon]

@@Chris.Daviese you scientist? Words are not enough to express how wrong you are. They all defend something, from rather broad paradigms ( e.g. medicine, within which change of theory, therapy etc. is not disallowed) to rather narrow theories( e.g. economics, where some dogmatic theories - showing little to no evidence - are protected to this very day). Change does not happen within journals that represent certain „visions“ (i.e. ideology) based on certain paradigms or theories. The „community“ and its „beliefs“ being protected from internal critique exactly by peer reviews. Not to speak of totally corrupted pseudo science based on scenarios like the IPPC.

[@arigoldman1873]

This video talks about the planets coalescing from radom dust in the solar system, yet i was under the impression that it was understood within the EU model that planets are birthed from within stars as observed by telescopes. Even our own sun ejected a planetray body the size of earth and everyone claimed it was a ufo drawing energy off the sun... This video is not update i believe... This is certainly not the hypothesis wallace thornhill promoted.

[@oskarstenlund]

​@@Chris.Daviesthe fact that nobody decides it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Scientific dogma is very real and is preventing new research every day. It stipulates what questions you may ask if you desire to keep a salary.

[@littlebangdotorg]

Thanks for this. I'm a Wal Th. fan, but this gives some good detail on Hannes, who Wal often refers to.

[@SeethePattern]

Yes that was my big problem with a lot of the Thunderbolt stuff, they refer to Arp and Alfven as if we know it... well now at least we know a little more :)

[@seachangeau]

@@SeethePattern yup so lets get together and really try nut this out cause we have the best chance of doing it close to home where the data is pouring in.

[@jedimonk362]

Thanks!

[@humanitech]

This is such a natural and beautiful proposition for the constructs and ongoing processes of solar system formation. A mixture of both internal interactions, reactions, productions and outputs from within the star and also the external interactions and inferences of what is externally present in the ether/space.. all responding to electromagnetic fields and gravity interplays of everything present ...which also offers and explains there might natural levels of potential variability and deviation too! Alvin has a practical, logical and yet poetic mind...in regards to the natural birthing, evolution, recycling and rebirthing qualities of the cosmos...which seems to fit very well with observations and data. We are steadily getting closer to completing the 3D cosmic jigsaw puzzle...but it's not always easy when the picture on the box and the pieces are often subtly or dramatically changing LOL.

[@RonDotComnz]

Wonderful. That everything is electric, for me, there is no doubt. From the nature of matter itself through to the cosmos at large- all of it electric. That one may read these words is entirely dependent upon the electric forces. Interesting times....

[@etherico3041]

Crazy how science hasn’t caught onto this considering how important “electromagnetism” is to everything in today’s world. I say “electromagnetism” because electricity is dielectricity and magnetism at right angles to each other so it’s inaccurate to call it electromagnetism. It’s like saying pregnant baby

[@LukeAquilina]

@@etherico3041 it is not crazy, because the effects of electromagnetism are caused by a single mechanism that comprises the underlined quantum field, known as the spinor or quantum dipole. Electromagnetism is poorly understood for the same reasons that the quantum field is poorly understood, which is that it is not considered to be be comprised of physical mechanisms, even though it clearly is. However, if we consider that the electron also has the geometry of a dipole, it is not so hard to understand how it interacts. energy can only fill the spaces in which the geometry of the quantum field allows, and can only interact in the ways that the field allows. Just as the field is the source of all energy it is the source of all forces that shape our universe.

[@rabokarabekian409]

So you reject these observations? A surprise catch from a quantum wave In a QSL, spinons freely move about carrying heat and spin - but no electrical charge. To detect them, most researchers have relied on techniques that look for their heat signatures. More familiarly: A neutrino is a fermion that interacts only via the weak interaction and gravity. The neutrino is so named because it is electrically neutral and because its rest mass is so small that it was long thought to be zero. The rest mass of the neutrino is much smaller than that of the other known elementary particles excluding massless particles. The weak force has a very short range, the gravitational interaction is extremely weak due to the very small mass of the neutrino, and neutrinos do not participate in the strong interaction.

[@fredhoupt4078]

Excellent. You deserve a much bigger audience.

[@liavofra]

Today we will cross the hundred subscribe!! we should make a party :)

[@SeethePattern]

@fred houpt Thanks... I really appreciate that :)

[@SeethePattern]

So close now 99....

[@liavofra]

100!!! Congratulations :)

[@SeethePattern]

Yay! :D

[@andrewmckeown6786]

I LLOOVVEE The fact that you were drwn into the Gravity of The EU as an outside...somewhat critically charged commentator and have remained here to illuminate us viewers. Thanks Dude👍😁❤️🇨🇦🍻

[@LostHorizon52]

I love your work, I have added you to my recommended channel list.

[@SeethePattern]

Thank you I really appreciate that :)

[@tacpreppers4906]

I'd very much like to hear your take on a possible capture event forming the solar system, if you're up to it. The axial tilts are what intrigue me, being that spinning objects, like gyroscopes, tend to stay oriented unless disturbed by substantial force. Curiously, the Earth, Mars, Saturn and Neptune have very similar tilts, ~25 degrees +-, and the Sun, Mercury and Jupiter are not too far from 0 degrees with the obvious Uranus being a complete mystery and Venus that behaves more like a comet than a planet(according the proponents of the EU). So the question is; in an electric universe, is this not a more plausible theory of how this dissimilar collection of planets came into being? Thanks for putting in the time to make these incredible productions, Gareth. The visuals never fail to amaze and to shed some light on the esoteric. cheers

[@duderama6750]

I prefer the Worlds in Collision theory myself. It answers other important questions too, like plant evolution, our hostile sun, etc.

[@StevenMunch-bv5gs]

Thank you for this video. This is a very interesting Hypothesis. As if the order condenses out of it. I like it very much. Keep going your great work! 🦊

[@revivalcycle]

Excellent subject well presented; very relevant. Thank you.

[@thomasjamison2050]

The most staggering aspect of the Electric Universe Cosmology is the irrational resistance to its concepts.

[@LukeAquilina]

Just on a logical basis, if I told you there were two forces and one was very weak and one was very strong, which one do you think played more of a role in the development of the system?

[@thomasjamison2050]

@@LukeAquilina If I told you that honestly answering this question was going to significantly impact your sources of income in a very negative manner, what would you do?

[@LukeAquilina]

@@thomasjamison2050 very true. The sociological impacts of a paradigm shift are hard to fully conceptualize. Concealing the truth however never works in the end. Once Pandora’s box is opened, it cannot be closed despite their intense efforts. Their models don’t work and it is becoming obvious to more and more outside of their community that they have no more knowledge of value to offer to the greater world. What incredible feats of engineering and deep universal understandings have been unveiled by the imaginary creation of quarks, neutrinos, bosons, or gravitational waves? I’m waiting. When we discovered the truth of how to manipulate the em properties of the quantum field, it directly resulted in the most incredible industrial revolution and a quantum leap of possibilities.

[@null_s3t]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@LukeAquilinaJust because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s not important. Unfortunately for you, the study of quantum mechanics, general relativity, and particle physics will continue to aid humanity whether you know what’s going on or not. Not only that, but a deeper UNDERSTANDING of our universe and everything that makes it up allows us to have more tools for surviving in it. The Standard Model isn’t something that really has engineering or ‘practical’ use, as it’s a framework for the fundamental particles of our universe. It’s a purely discovery based field, where understandings of behavior of particles have allowed other fields to make use of them. This DOESN’T mean it’s necessarily useless though, as it does give us a better understanding of the universe. The benefits of quantum theory however, are so wide scale and massive it’s impossible to explain it all. Any electronics you’ve ever used exploit quantum phenomena using predictions by QED, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model. By the way, you can’t just say that fundamental particles are imaginary without disproving ALL of the experimental data we have proving that each of them exist, because if you do that, you’re called an ignoramus at best and a charlatan at worst. The Standard Model doesn’t exist to have practical applications, it exists to describe the fundamental particles of the universe, and it’s incomplete! We’re still not there yet! It might not be the right path to take, but does have a non falsifiable nature to it that makes its predictions impossible to disprove. That aspect is annoying scientifically, but it’s currently the best model we have, and until a better one that explains EVERYTHING it does and more exists, it’ll keep being the ‘Standard Model’

[@SnitchNewsNetwork]

@@LukeAquilina😂 they both play their role so your argument is null and void void

[@GlenLittle95]

The "over spin" theory of planet and moon formation would explain many of these ideas. If Mars was the moon of a former planet, that would explain why the density of both is similar.

[@slickwillie3376]

Great stuff.

[@jryer1]

Yup, electric universe does explain better than any other theory out there. Current does flow via plasma across great distances, but don't tell the big bang crowd that, their heads may explode.

[@reefsroost696]

I like this idea.

[@jan-martinulvag1962]

21:49 Comets are not ice

[@arthurrobey7177]

For lumpen brutes such as myself, it would have been good to have it explained in words of one syllable just why we need the gravitational force to equal the magnetic. I only got there at the end of the video. Also we need the axes of graphs to be clearly annunciated, without which they are worthless.

[@slickwillie3376]

I've been thinking about the Birkeland current model of the solar system, and concluded that if it is true, then there should be plasma currents flowing in circular "orbits" in alternating directions. That is, referring to Dr Scott's bessel function, from the sun outward in the plane of the solar system, we should see an azimuthal magnetic field that reverses it's direction as we move outward from shell to shell, and plasma current flowing along each of these magnetic field "lines", but said plasma current being, in each case, of opposite polarity charged particles, ie, electrons in one case, ions in the next, and with the polarity and direction alternating in kind as we move from shell to shell. The planets then would be formed by Marklund convection in the region between every other magnetic shell, where his bessel function shows matter accumulation to occur. Adding the sun's rotating magnetic field to this construct yields the correct planetary revolutions. Adding gravity yields the moon's and rings. It seems to me that the Birkeland current model jibes well with Alfven's theory.

[@phillyg7661]

I really like the direction of this. Definitely in line with a lot of my views, although there was no mention of the equipotential planes of the stars magnetic field that would result in planetary orbit, and you mentioned ionized particles, although still move on to state that gravity coalesces all the gas, no mention of potential simple static cling to start the clumping process of all matter, until gravity takes over. Thanks! Cheers

[@summerbrooks9922]

The elasticity of the molecules or atoms of an Ideal gas prevent coalescing. Cannot collapse into itself at all. Ionized plasma has a dipole effect. Looks like the two are confused here.

[@cliffordandersen3190]

This Channel is nice. Just found it. This one and the thunderbolt channel are awesome on the electric universe.

[@jennabronson4704]

What if the asteroid belt is much younger than anyone realizes, and it's in the *process* of coalescing?

[@ghostrecon3214]

Dr Tom Van Flandern made the case that the asteroid belt and the meteor showers are remnants of exploded planets.

[@Renegen1]

amazing stuff

[@keithmcgarrigle2653]

Just a thought what if along a long birkland current z pinches where stars form. (part of the cosmic web). If the web snaps then stars, and part formed stars at different stages of growth making building blocks for Suns Planets and Moons. Then they spiraled together in a flat disc. Asteroid would be formed by collisions of some of the Moons. Then they would try to form around the largest Sun by gravity creating a solar system?

[@MikeLisanke]

can you give search terms for the papers! authors and titles and dates etc. the URL you provide are broken! thx!

[@kreynolds1123]

23:20 rotating magnetic fields? Could you please elaborate because magnetic fields do not rotate on their polar axis. And I may be wrong with this but magnetic fields generated by internal dynamo effects will tend to align their magnetic fields axially with their rotation.

[@markwadsworth1254]

Love it! Would a plasmoid, rather than a "black hole", explain the accretion disk as just as well?

[@summerbrooks9922]

Has to be a plasmoid.. Black holes cannot exist. Eddington, with his Ideal Gas, collapsing, is wrong on many counts. Gases have elastic bounces upon encounters and cannot collapse.

[@donaldbest7621]

Nikola Tesla said he could suspend tons in the air with only the magnetic force, but he said it feeble in comparison to the repelling and attracting qualities of the electrostatic force. In fact, tesla could not find the limits to the repelling and attracting of the electrostatic force, Tesla considered it infinite. That is from a guy who was quite used to running lights with a (as close to as practically possible) pure vacuum and 4 million volts, and amperage’s that would make most electrical engineers blush. Electromagnetic waves are transverse, and are, therefore, secondary. Primary wave forms are longitudinal, compressive. Unless the EU peeps start incorporating these concepts, the view of natural processes will always be skewed and not complete. The next phase of evolution needs to happen in the EU universe;bring in longitudinal energy and damped waves.

[@KondoriRamin]

Thank you...

[@douglasstrother6584]

Who says "Classical Physics is boring?"

[@albertperson4013]

Planet formation by gravitational accretion was disproved years ago, but still "hangs on" in many educational and theoretical circles. Electromagnetism is 1x10^39 STRONGER than gravity. Pretty conclusive, in my humble opinion.

[@theelectricorigins846]

Good morning. Would mind to explaind how do you calculate de ratio between Magnetic Force and Gravitational Force for a proton/electron in an orbit??

[@SeethePattern]

Fg=GMm/r^2 Fm=qvB These are two very standard physics equations. Ratio is then Fg:Fm

[@theelectricorigins846]

@@SeethePattern I know that.... though anyway Fm = qvB is ignoring the electric field (F = qE + qvB). However it be, how do we know B (magnetic flux from Sun?), and which amount of charge are u considering for e- or p+?

[@SeethePattern]

The Sun field is simply a matter of looking up. It should fall off at 1/r^3. This is I think how Alfven calculated it but there is now also data from Voyager, not sure if New Horizon's was capable of measuring the magnetic field. I suggest you read Alfven's paper's as he goes into a lot of depth and quotes all of his references.

[@theelectricorigins846]

@@SeethePattern It seems he takes H= a*r⁻³ , being a the Dipolar Momentum Sun = 4.2 10³³ gauss cm³. (unknown data).

[@nachoeremita1036]

everythings is electric and everything is fractal this never ends just go and go everything is a nucleo of energy

[@summerbrooks9922]

Sounds mechanical. And eternal. Yet, Sadie Carnot predicted the heat death of the universe. If we had no beginning, this death would render all parts of the universe as having the same temperature by now. If all is dipole related, would that mKe a difference?

[@philoso377]

Nice video and presentation. Thanks If I understand the narrative, Hannes Alfvén’s model start off electric but ends in a mechanical model garnished with his applied electricity. In that the electrodynamics energy is traced to material collapse driven by gravity. This reminds me of Eric Lerner’s model also mechanical gravity based with applied electrodynamics. Can we still take those as a part of the electric universe.

[@ShifuCareaga]

It's really too bad you're on the Eview this Sunday while I am presenting at AKHA and cannot be on! This video and the papers (of course I am storing all of it on the Gateway) are very timely. I just decided to write a paper about Haumea killing the Accretion Model. I think I will reference a replacement model, and so thank you for this well done video. I also like that you use video software/flybys to help with visualization. May I post links here for you to my papers, and the Gateway?

[@SeethePattern]

yes please do, I would be very interested in reading it, and I'm sure it won't be my only time on Eview

[@Dan-DJCc]

Given the vastness of interplanetary space it seems to me highly improbable the number of collisions relied upon in formation modeling could have occurred.

[@summerbrooks9922]

Makes sense. But, at that junction in time, density may have proven to be different.

[@potatoman147]

I feel like I am going to school again and I love it

[@danplt]

What software you have used for the simulations?

[@basxm]

Curious how the days of the week line up with the planets starting with the sun with sunday, monday with mercury, tuesday with venus, wednesday with earth, thursday with mars, jupiter with friday and saturn with saturday.....the moon was with tuesday until venus came in and kickballed to earth

[@andrewsparkinson1566]

Thanks for making this video, though I will have to watch a few times. Q, what is it that causes ironisation, and is there a particle temperature requirement?

[@marktester5799]

Ionization occurs when one or more outer electrons are stripped from an atom/molecule. This generally occurs when energy is added to the atom/molecule, usually by the absorption of a photon, collision with another molecule/atom or particle, or by decay of an unstable isotope. The picture presented in this case is that a neutral gas cloud contracts under gravity, accelerating in the process (gravitational potential energy is being converted to kinetic energy). As the gas cloud gets smaller, the density increases, and the individual constituents are moving at higher velocities (at a higher temperature). As a result, collisions between constituents increase and the rate of atomic/molecular ionization increases.

[@andrewsparkinson1566]

@@marktester5799 omg you do have a knack for explaining, cheers I’m in awe.

[@summerbrooks9922]

​@@marktester5799Kinetics has zero to do with thermodynamic character.

[@guilhermebicudo8205]

Sorry, but what do you mean by Jupiter and Mars are the most dense? I thought they were the least dense...

[@tolinfarrell82]

He says *and Saturn 5:07 Still wrong though I guess...

[@jtinsley01]

And this is all extremely interesting and may be of some use. However, Mr. Alfven"s theory [at least in this presentation] does not take into account the growing body of evidence that Saturn, Mars, Earth, and Jupiter are not native to this solar system but were captured by our Sun, and Venus began its life as a comet ejected from either Jupiter or Saturn. Or, would this process described here also be applicable to the formation of all solar systems?

[@raulwhitefeather963]

Im confused... I thought Mercury was the densest planet. I thought Saturn was the least dense. So light, it would float if an ocean large enough existed. So which is true?

[@theelectricorigins846]

How does Alfven's view explain the grouping of axial tilt around 23-29 degrees and another one at 0-7 degrees???? Then how can it explain the retrograde spins of Uranus and Venus, not to talk about retrograde orbits (Triton etc...)? And what about Moon's strange orbit tilt and the different axial tilt to Earth, but also to Mars, while all other moons are matching their parent orbs tilt inclination?

[@summerbrooks9922]

Possibly the picture Donald Scott paints comes into play with his counterotating rings. I fail to understand why the planets look so similar in momentum.

[@andrewmurray6352]

I would love to know the background music. Goes so well with the discussion. Excellent presentation as usual ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

[@u.p.woodtick3296]

The music is distracting

[@senatorjosephmccarthy2720]

@@u.p.woodtick3296, too much so.

[@jrgennilsson9885]

@@u.p.woodtick3296 agree, it totally destoys the videos. It is WAY to much.

[@scottbitz5780]

The Thunderbolts channel promotes the "polar" configuration of planets based on geoglyphs only. Please explain that one.

[@paulflowers2213]

Great video very informative and well executed. I am no expert on th Swedish language only what I do know is that a double consonant is pronounced short and a single consonant is pronounced long. So a Swed would pronounce his name as Hans just not drawn out, something that the English speakers ear would probably miss. Don’t take my word on it best to ask a Swed.

[@Kansika]

A Finn here with my take on it... Hannes has two syllables, hence it's "Han-nes" with emphasis on the beginning of both syllables. Both "n"s should be heard much like in "can not". Swedes add a rising intonation to the last syllable, while Finns speak more monotonously.

[@Kansika]

And the last name is similarly pronounced Alf-Veen.

[@arigoldman1873]

Alfven got a lot right, but he also got a long wrong. As evidenced by this video that directly contradicts our observations of planets being ejected from stars.

[@markmcd2780]

So could this help explain why we see dwarf stars out there with Jovian-size planets in tight orbits? The EM field of the dwarf is weak so the 'cloud' can collapse much closer?

[@malnsar]

Aye you on board now pal. Remember when you weren't lol like is all at some point. Glad you are tho Mr see the patern love ya vids mate tbh

[@rblibit]

A Quack's Point of View: We know from the SAFIRE project that elemental transmutation occurs within high current plasma sources, so it seems natural that along large Birkeland currents running through areas of gas nebula the Z-Pinch would be the likely beginning as the natural magnetic confinement of the Z-Pinch would continue to increase as long as it is fed the material and the current source is constant. I don't believe for a second that center of the Earth is iron or even a large, heavy molten substance. I think that the volcanic activity results from the heat caused by the conversion of the large polar currents running through the planet. Of course, I am also in a very small minority who believes in the Trans-dimensional information based universe where our physical layer (L) results from the information in the layer or layers above it (L+1) or (L+2) and it is the transfer of this information into our "physical" layer (describing it) that uses the currents for the conversion processes (which is the volcanic heat source). Of course, this requires that the aether exists as the foundational layer for all things. There is some freedom to being rated as a quack since I don't have to worry about what anyone thinks of my theories, and as long as my government doesn't approve "Quack Hunting" it is a very enjoyable, free existence. And yes, this does imply that this is all a Creation of one more very powerful, even omnipotent beings. As always thank you for the wonderful education you provide. Your channel is of great value and you are a very good educator.

[@ancientone5355]

Rblibit, in the description page of your KZbin channel you say, " I can at least show you how to feel the energy that radiates from your body at will. I can show you how to manipulate elements in your environment (the Earth, the sky, etc.) with visible results in under 6 minutes. Cost? ZERO." You have no videos. I would like for you to show me this. How can this happen? Thank you

[@ryanorionwotanson4568]

I think hollow earth theory is vald due to much of what you mention here...

[@remkojerphanion4686]

Great video, but the music is distracting. The formation of the moon, and it's orbit so close to the earth is a real puzzle for me. The mars-moon connection I find fascinating also....

[@acllhes]

As someone who doesn’t know much about electricity - this is very interesting.

[@jseadog1394]

Is it possible that in our solar system, the resultant energy is in equilibrium, and that is why the asteroid belt material has not coalesced?

[@Zorlof]

When averaging the ionization, we’re the elemental ratios taken into consideration? It looks like a great model, akin to a revelation…nice appropriate background music as well. 👍 P.S. Loved your Thunderbolt Project presentations as well. Have we considered that perhaps Tetha was Mars but in a more eccentric orbit and wound up in its current orbit, leaving a chunk of its mass ( the moon) to be captured by earth, after their collision? Just a thought… that mighty scar on Mars and the electrical splatter could have been an electrical discharge between Earth and Tetha whilst in proximity. (I am pushing it, I know. Lol)

[@dexterdequoitdikkentheworl87]

Hi mate,good thinking...there is a discussion in the thunderbolts forums on how mercury fits inside of the vallis marinaris on mars,and may be the mars rockymetallic core...its worth a read if youre interested...

[@karaool]

Alfven's plasma model of our solar system's formation might explain its current state, but it would seem to have little to do with what Velikovsky and those who subscribe to the Saturn Myth hypothesis have to say about it. What, with Saturn supposedly filling our night sky in fairly recent times, against a backdrop of a considerably more proximate Jupiter, and Venus being burped out by the latter to wreck havoc in the inner solar system until it settled into its current orbit etc. Surprises me the Electric Universe folks have so much invested in it--Alfven's model, that is. The two would seem to have so little in common, that one could be used to deny the validity of the other.

[@SeethePattern]

True but Alfven had nothing to do with Velikovski. To be honest I struggle with the whole Saturn idea, it sound romantic but where it the evidence other than myths? I think what Alfven's model shows is a mechanism and potentially the way these magnetised bodies will behave. It may not be totally correct but I think his main principles are really important to remember

[@karaool]

@@SeethePattern I agree. Surprised there aren't computer generated simulations of solar systems based on Alfven's model. Are there? They seem to have all the critical factors and their dynamics in place. So, why not? And what about the data from the recently discovered planetary systems beyond our own? How are things shaping up there? Is the data favoring any one model over the others?

[@SeethePattern]

Now that is a good question. As far as I could find no models but they tend not to publish them. A search for citations of this paper might yield some interesting results. I think the problem with other systems nearby is that we are not able to image them very well, it would be interesting to see if they too had sets of densities that match within the system. Both points are certainly worth a follow up... good call :)

[@SeethePattern]

I've just checked the citations. It was cited 28 times, some indeed about the evolution of the solar system, those are older. More recent ones relate more to plasma dynamics. Check it out adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-ref_query?bibcode=1942StoAn..14....2A&refs=CITATIONS&db_key=AST

[@stevef9530]

Speaking as a layman (and 4 years late!) I agree with these comments. I differentiate between the scientists and the mythologists in the EU ranks. I found the late, great Wal Thornhill to be immensely compelling, and Doug Scott too, but much of the rest seems highly speculative and even parochial. I have often wondered why there was so little interest in actually following up Alfven’s work, instead of just claiming him as ‘a supporter’ of the EU theory of cosmology in a general way. So this is interesting, and I will be following it up (and trying to understand it!).

[@sillysad3198]

there are more forces (effects) that are not accounted for by the official astronomers, e.g. VISCOSITY, on the time scale of planet formation viscosity does exist, it is just slightly "opposite" to the notion that we use for liquids (gas is more viscose than dust, ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more)

[@lowersaxon]

So gravitational fields are still in place and working according to GRT. That is by „bending“ „spacetime“ which means bending and curving the „geometry“ of spacetime itself.

[@summerbrooks9922]

Gravity has no influence on bending light around d stars. If this were to happen, all the stars would be seen having rings around them in a confounding array in our night sky.

[@robertdevino4109]

You have to ask would there be enough material to form the moon from the material missing from Mars's northern hemosphere?

[@jamesmurphy2828]

What happened to Saturn being a Brown Dwarf

[@TCBYEAHCUZ]

Have you looked into phenomena such as Sprites? aka High altitude atmospheric lightning, intense lightning discharges ABOVE thunderstorms that have been observed, so far there is Sprites, Elves, Halo's, Blue Jets, Gigantic Jets. Observation requires special camera sensors that are adapted to low light conditions. What I find fascinating is how remarkably similar the blue jets are to relativistic jets - An astronaut on the International Space Station took some videos of this blue jet from above, and these are occurring right in our own atmosphere *above* our noses, could there be plasmoids forming in lightning storms that cause these jets? and could this possible be the source of the mythical ball lightning?

[@SeethePattern]

No not yet. I'm aware of them and they intrigue me. As I cover the electric solar system I intend to circle back to Earth and look in detail at all the electric phenomena on Earth. And I hear what your saying about the same systems repeating themselves at different levels but I haven't done any research on them yet so can't really comment on whether they are plasmoids or not.

[@seachangeau]

@@SeethePattern Witzsches video incorporates "sprites" in his formation explanation as well as bridging Peimer Fields to Birkeland current model from EU

[@chbu7081]

They have nothing to do with planet formation.

[@daviddrew7852]

These are recognised and understood in an Electric Universe, where planets seek electrical equilibium with the wider solar environment.

[@arigoldman1873]

Also the "oort cloud" has never been oberved to actually exist. It was theorized to exist in order to try and explain where large asteroids are coming from. Im not sure why you are stating its exists as a confirmed observation

[@brettmoore3194]

This model, if I'm correct, shows that mass is transferred by energy to the poles of the planet's which might explain the expanding earth theory.

[@seabeepirate]

Very interesting. Maybe the remaining debris rings didn’t coalesce because they are moving too fast still. Think of the way that heat leaves molecules as they condense from vapor to liquid. Or maybe it’s easier to imagine the other way around, planets boiling into space debris as they move backward toward the birth of the solar system.

[@bobfeyereisen5521]

Have you ever looked into the possibility of Saturn being our sun before our current sun stole the electric force and moved the inner planets?

[@sonpopco-op9682]

You are referring to Symbols of an Alien sky?

[@alanlittlemoon8194]

Wow> Great stuff. I wonder though about the EU idea that Saturn and Jupiter were dwarf stars that were then captured by Sol.

[@SeethePattern]

This is something I will be making another video on in the near future. Comparing the different planet formation models and how planets might be formed from stars. I did a video on Electric Saturn where I looked at some of the evidence to support this claim. There is indeed some but it's not conclusive at the moment. I think we need to really understand how stars form, then how planets are created and then work out if rogue stars can be captured and what would happen to the electrical environment around that two stars.

[@alanlittlemoon8194]

@@SeethePattern Yes exactly. I have been enjoying your viewpoint on EU ideas. As you know outside of Thunderbolts Project there are a lot of folks commenting on EU who don't understand it and use it to forward their own sketchy beliefs. They often do great harm. Your analyses seem pretty sharp. keep up the work.

[@TheDuke-vb9cq]

Well NASA seem to be now on board the concept that Gas Giants are "Could be" or "Have been" Stars. Saturn by its size is thought to have been a small brown dwarf, while Jupiter it seems is large enough to have been a possible red dwarf. Both types are known to flare. EU theory says flaring is a result of their inability to adjust to the changing electrical supply by the local Birkland current, so they reduce their mass to rebalance themselves and in the process "spit out" their increasing family of moons.

[@Dan-DJCc]

It is very intriguing that both the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force decrease over distance at the same rate of 1/R^2. Do the other known forces exhibit this relationship?

[@northstar12389]

Interesting, so what would you point as the problems of this theory and what do you think about the other alternative models, like the expulsion by electrical stress both lateral and polar, and the Nice model ? Thanks for this video!

[@SeethePattern]

This is exactly what I will be starting with the main problems with our current view of this model and then cover some of the older concepts that Newton was also looking at and then bring it up into the modern era, these will be more than simple tweaks to existing gravity like the NICE model. So watch this space, it will take me a little while to do the research and create the videos.

[@SeethePattern]

I've just realised that your response was not to the LIGO video so some of my comments relate to that video. As for the solar formation model this is something that I am very much looking into but in order to really address this I need to explore planetary formation first as there are many competing models including this one but in order to understand this better I need to understand the current limitations of gravity. So I'm starting by looking at gravity and will then circle back to look at planetary formation and yes this will include the idea of planet migration through electrical changes and also the idea that they may be formed through multiple different process. Sorry for my confusing response :)

[@northstar12389]

@@SeethePattern Thanks for the answers. Have you read the Peratt, Plasma Universe book. He has some interesting assumptions.

[@SeethePattern]

it's on my list but I have not got the book yet

[@t00by00zer]

You mention heating as the method for ionization. UV radiation will ionize most gases and "charge" dust. The sun produces vast quantities of UV, and therefore, most dust in the solar system is also charged.

[@shodan6401]

Well, if we're trying to theorize the formation of the rocky inner planets, how does the implication that these planets were originally part of a different system, with Saturn as their Red Dwarf or Brown Dwarf sun which was then captured by our current Sun affect these calculations? First would be the formation of this Brown Dwarf system with rocky planets that then invaded the electromagnetic potential of the Sun with its gas giants and the subsequent disruptions to that system. The obvious evidence of this possibility lies with the strange qualities of Venus, potentially material ejected from Saturn itself, as well as the strange axial alignment of Saturn and the unaccounted for differences in the orbital planes of the various planets.

[@bigoptions]

I read about a third of the three articles; I can work with this. Does anyone know why Alfven wouldn't understand why the density of the planets would be less, the farther away from the sun that they are??

[@kreynolds1123]

Please fix language used. 4:19 Field lines do not exist, except in our imagination to visualize field direction and field magnitude through a given area. Please define surface because "Surface, of field lines" if field lines exist they would be one dimentional. But surfaces are two dimensional. But going with fueld lines if certain field lines are to be grouped to an surface how is that group defined. What surface are you refering to in the context of magnetic fields? Is it a surface defined by equal field magnitude? A surface defined by a magnetic circuit through certain solar latitude? Or is the surface is defined some other way?

[@TheDuke-vb9cq]

But in line with the EU concept, this theory fails to consider that Saturn, Earth, Mars, and Venus (and probably Jupiter) were not present when the solar system formed ! That Saturn was itself a brown dwarf Star in the past, (NASA seems to now recognise that Gas Giants are potential or "Has been" stars) and Saturn was dragged into the solar system by gravitational attraction, bringing Earth & Mars and its moons with it. All of which exhibit approximately a 23-27 degree tilt to the elliptical plane, giving the clue to their group origin. That the greater electrical potential of the Sun in an Electric Universe basically switched Saturn off upon its approach. Saturn still emits a lot more heat than it should. If it had only ever been a gas giant and a part of the solar system since its supposed formation. That (Saturn) having been a red dwarf, are known to flare and eject matter sufficiently great at erratic intervals to produce their numerous moons, and possibly even Venus, which still reveals Comet like behaviour, and has a surface temperature of some 850+F which is far higher than it should have, if it was somehow a part of the original solar system formation. The EU theory has at various times suggested Venus was ejected by either Saturn or possibly Jupiter, which might explain the "great red spot". NASA has revealed that the rings of Saturn are made almost totally of Water of the same type as Earth (which they find anomalous), and that these rings are new (possibly 50,000-100,000 years old) and will not last much longer than another 50,000 odd years. All of which seems to also fit the EU model. That the arrival of Saturn and its entourage caused major disruption in the inner solar system, as the new arrivals shunted electrically for position. NASA is also of the opinion that our solar system is peculiar in that it is totally different to all the exo-systems discovered in recent years. This fact also brings suspicion that Jupiter was also captured gravitationally at some time in the past, and that its entry may explain the current position of Neptune and Uranus as the most likely gas giant candidates for the original solar systems creation. Although Uranus's 98 deg tilt posses a problem ! But that they (Neptune & Uranus) would have been originally close to the Sun, as in virtually all exo-systems found to date, and therefore fit NASA's "Hot Jupiter" concept. All these factors have some bearing on the actual mechanics and electrical behaviour of the original formation of this solar system. (Of course since you produced this video we have had the bombshell of the SAFIRE project which may also have some bearing on the subject matter in this video !?). However I do enjoy your scrutiny of the EU theory as this helps to give another informative angle on the growing importance of this intriguing branch of Physics.

[@SeethePattern]

Yes but remember that this is based on Alfvens paper. I don’t think Alfven has all the right bits but I feel it’s important to look at all the angles. And you are right out solar system is unusual but I would also argue that our ability to properly see other systems is very limited. I’ve covered a bit of the capture theory in Electrical Saturn but I’m still sceptical about this concept but certainly don’t rule it out. There is some evidence that would point to it but it’s not enough for me at the moment. But equally there is not enough evidence for a convincing theory of how any system forms or star for that matter. So for now I’m focussed on trying to look at different concepts for planet and star formation before looking at hybrid systems.

[@seachangeau]

The essential EMU ( electromagnetic i like to call it EMU in capslok cause EU allcaps is always giving me the economic stuff in europe ) formation seems correct. In both there exists the 'double set' issue inner v. outer 'planets'. However the addition of Velokovskian catastrophic interaction for explaining both the asteroid beltS we see, and the issues peculiar to Venus appears simpler indeed necessary to me - so does there exist any fundemental physics barrier in Alven v. Emu? Nothing is a deal breaker for either model as far as i know so imo the best model comes from combining them (as i think EMU already does although the nitty gritty isnt spelled out for lay people, i know emu considers Alvens work as core, ) with the possible reconsideration of Uranus as our birth sun as per Tess Clark. Someone will untangle the knot. We are on the right path with this. Just keep at it!!

[@chbu7081]

You could benefit from a course in basic physics. It would have prevented you from falling for this EU pseudoscience. Saturn is nowhere near massive enough to have been a star.

[@mariofurtado3458]

Where did the meteoritic dust come from?

[@assemblyofsilence]

Interesting to consider the mars/moon connection here in light of Talbot's theory that the hero Mars was a representation of the role that mars played in relation to Venus entering the solar system as a comet. If this is the case then might it be possible that the moon was a byproduct of the “battle”?? Love your videos - thank you!

[@shockwave326]

if our moon as suspected was a satellite of Jupiter and was born in the same way the earth mars and Venus were birthed then it makes sense that the moon might match one of those objects density

[@SeethePattern]

Are you referring to the fissioning process of an electric star, splitting as it were to create companions? That would work if it occurred in different phases, so moon and mars together, earth and the other at a later stage, and the gas giants before this... that could explain the differences in density i suppose.

[@shockwave326]

@@SeethePattern nope I'm referring to the process of a star when it comes into a region of space or as happened to Saturn when its pulled into the influence of a main sequence star such as our own it has to adjust its voltage to the new environment then it will need to spit out part of its core to equalize its electrical potential to its new environment,,,, fission and fusion stars are fake news,,,, stars are externally powered by birkeland currents,,, not fusion internal power the star using up one fuel after another till it explodes,,,, that's an incorrect model

[@SeethePattern]

No I don't mean fission as in nuclear fission. Part of the EU model allows stars to fission, meaning split apart. When the incoming current rises too quickly this can happen, this is why we see so many binary stars and stars with gas giants. So this is the same process you are referring to except it's not the incoming current that causes it but the change in potential as it enters the sun's electric field. By fissioning it reduced the current density as the combined surface area is much greater... it's all in my video on electric stellar evolution... you clearly have not watched my Sun series as you would know that I don't believe in the fusion model ;)

[@shockwave326]

@@SeethePattern well if ur into the EU im sure u don't believe in the fission model I did not know how deep u were ive not had time to go over all ur videos im inot a bunch of other sub's over 200 of them 210 to be exact and I get bombed with all of them and I hoave a hot wheels/matchbox diecast server on discord that take up a lot of time and I manage the electric views discord as well as have over 40 discord servers I look at from time to time

[@johnchase2148]

Great

[@adamsmith2719]

I wish there were not that slightly annoying background music...

[@goodvibrations4864]

This implies, a ship/shuttle that sets itself to a precise frequency would be carried against any gravity to the coinciding frequency ring of the sun with no on-board propulsion or fuel disregarding that which is needed to electromagnify the vessel. Straight from earth to solar orbit. 😮😮 cool. This may require a little fine tuning, ( get it wrong and be sucked straight to the sun, or not accounting for the g force involved in speed of light travel type stuff) but I should have it by lunch😊

[@goodvibrations4864]

Great video by the way.

[@brianfriedman101]

Oort cloud is just a theory and since comets are NOT made of ice (we actually been there) we could now completely ignore it

[@rabokarabekian409]

Worth remembering from Python's Grail, "It's only a model." We must not confuse the map with the territory (if unclear, look up the topic). The models of science are evolutional, not revelatory. My personal confession is I mistrust anything presented as simple or clear, including this statement itself. This video qualifies as cogent in that respect. I know what one egg is in practical terms, while I can only suspect that an absolutely precise accounting of all the related characteristics is undefinable and unknowable, if only due to relativistic considerations. "How do you feel?" with my fingers

[@waitwhat2143]

So...what about the picture of a black hole? Is it legitimate or not?

[@SeethePattern]

The algorithms they use means they are cherry picking their data. Quite possibly we are seeing a plasmoid at the heart of a galaxy but as I showed in a more recent video looking at SN1987a where they claimed to have spotted a new star they used one of the same array of radio telescopes used to image M87 and the overall image looks remarkably similar just shiften. Maybe I'm just seeing what I want to but if they used the same algorithms then maybe the cherry picking creates something very similar. That's not to say there is nothing there, as the image of the new star may also prove... it just may not look like what we are seeing... and it is most certainly not a blackhole .. again I have done a number of videos on this but I would lean towards Eric Lerner's model of a blackhole (I've done a video on Eric Lerner's Plasmoid model... I think it was titled Plasmoid Quasar model

[@chbu7081]

There is nothing else that it can be. Plasmoids are inherently unstable and cannot exist at cosmic scales.

[@chbu7081]

@@SeethePattern "The algorithms they use means they are cherry picking their data." You are just making that up out of ignorance.

[@giovanniguarino9152]

too loud the music, pity! For the rest, exceptional video!

[@SeethePattern]

Yeah sorry these are early videos. I may one day come back and redo them.

[@t00by00zer]

The idea that gravitational capture would result in the moon taking such a stable orbit is ludicrous. Resonance with fields is really the only thing that can account for such observations. Then there's the axial alignment hinting that the origins of Saturn, Neptune, Earth and Mars and the moon are more intimately linked. Perhaps being ejected from the Saturn system in this rearrangement process. Still doesn't account for Saturn being at such a large tilt compared to Jupiter.

[@bjh3661]

Amazing channel. I have been eagerly devouring your content since I discovered it. Perhaps you, Sir, with your plain-english communication style can manoeuvre yourself passively to become a mediator between the EU camp and the wider scientific community. You are the man for the task. You could be the alchemist, so to speak. On the topic of language, please examine my respectfully-assembled guide to increased credibility in the scientific community: Ker-ay-ting/Kree-ay-ting = Creating.
 New-kew-lar/New-klee-ar = Nuclear.
 New-kew-luss/New-klee-uss = Nucleus. Phenomenon = single. 
Phenomena = plural. Wishing you every success and awaiting your subsequent videos. Brotherly love. Benjamin.

[@sherylfetik4126]

The explanation seems to contradict the explanation related to the Saturn Myth. Velikovsky and those inspired by him, explain that the solar system was not stable as it is now, but the planets were moving around, causing havoc on Earth.

[@TheDAT9]

The music is a distraction Don't need it, don't want it.

[@drproton85]

The dominate theory is God saying, "Let there be light!" Therefore there was light. This video may explain what happens now that the universe is already placed into order.

[@rodneyhearld8151]

You are assuming that the yellow sun disk has been our only sun but the ancients worshiped Saturn as our first sun

[@jamesmurphy9105]

Why do other solar systems have Jupiter real close to the star

[@billgardiner4858]

Study the arrival of Comet Siding-Spring at Mars in 2014 for new insights.

[@ConsciousnessWatch]

Thanks for this explication of Alfven’s ideas vis a vis the solar system. 👍

[@jkmil4981]

At 60,00 times the force would Earth remain in the its orbit?

[@Chris.Davies]

How do you account for the fact the moon is made from material which is almost indistinguishable from the Earth's crust? And density of 3.9 is not even close to 3.3! That is even worse than saying, "Pi is 3". We know that Earth has a gigantic iron core - far larger than it has any right to be, and getting the core of Thea donated to Earth in an oblique impact seems likely. Plus, we now have a mechanism which slingshots the moon's material into a circular orbit, with the second object falling back to Earth after levering the moon beyond the Roche Limit, and circularising the orbit. We also know the moon has a tony iron core - far smaller than it should be. And so the likelyhood of an impact forming the moon seems far more likely than it ever being captured by Earth - which would never result in a circular orbit.

[@gracetruthandlight]

We don't know any of that.

[@Nathan-brown-gallagher]

@17min " that solar system was indeed formed in 2 separate waves"

[@lawesty]

I’d like to say quite a few of your list that has credible ideas, such as anti matter, are results of big bang ideology.

[@philoso377]

Cosmic plasma filament also known as Birkeland current have been recurring space dust and particles ready to form planets and sun. Plasma is inherently unstable and when condition allows it enters a run away magnetic pinching cycle compressing associated materials into a ball melting pot. When the local energy has been used up the region will reset back to passive state. Magnetic pinching was not limited at a single point but along the filament at multiple points, and hence the birth of sibling planets, daisy chained together sharing a common spin axis and direction. The siblings were not born into orbit regardless of the existence a dominant planet or sun. Magnetic and gravity attraction keeps the polar formation from disintegrated while electric repulsion force keep them apart by electric charge exchange, at a planetary scale. When that happen loose materials were drag into the exchange process. In what order? Larger of the two planets tends to possess more positive charge while smaller one with less positive or more electrons. All negatively charged loose materials of the smaller planet gravitate towards the larger planet while Positive charged loose materials gravitate towards the smaller planet. Like electrolysis in the ionized interplanetary space as opposed to through electrolyte. Unfortunately civilization development was matured long before the sibling planets were captured by the sun today. Such material exchange has been catastrophe in our ancient record verbally, several of this catastrophe went by Don planets, one by one began to capture in orbiting the sun. To capture process took place in a period know to us as younger dryas. It is believed that our moon was hovering next to earth facing Antarctica region.

[@davidarrons5183]

.... Jupiter has faint rings...