A Cold Beginning

When Peter Woodhead presented his theory of a hollow Earth as an explanation for the expanding Earth theory in 2014, he pointed out that his work was predicated on an assumption that planets start out cold and heat up over time.

However, the rocky crust of our planet means that it must have been hot enough at one point to melt dust into rock. The cold beginning must have been accompanied by a hot event, violent enough to have melted the crust of our planet from dust into lava, yet at the same time so brief that the heat did not penetrate very deep into Earth's cold internals.

The only astronomical event that fits this description is the supernova, which according to Donald Scott is an electric event associated with the birth of stars and planets.

Donald Scott's theory lends support to Peter Woodhead's theory in that it gives an explanation for the rocky crust of our planet. In fact, Donald Scott's theory lends support to all theories of planetary formation in which the crust has to have been heated only briefly. This includes Eva Nessenius' theory which lacks a credible explanation for the formation of the rocky crust of our planet.

In her book, Eva Nessenius points to evidence that life started almost as soon as our planet was formed. For this to have happened, our planet must have been relatively cool. However, Eva makes the mistake of sticking to the conventional model of planet formation in which matter is accumulated by gravity. Her conclusion that our planet must have started out as a gas planet, although logical in this paradigm, does not explain the rocky crust of our planet.

The evidence presented by Eva Nessenius adds credibility to Donald Scott's and Peter Woodhead's position, while coming up short in light of the conventional idea that planets were formed in accretion discs.

Cross section of a hollow planet

Pushing Charge Onto a Fully Charged Capacitor

Once fully charged, a capacitor cannot take on more charge without some type of deformation happening. When too much charge is pushed onto a capacitor, it either explodes or expands.

In the case of our planet, we know that geological activity increases when there is an increase in cosmic rays hitting our planet. What seems to be happening is that Earth, a fully charged capacitor, is being stressed by the extra charge. Internal pressures build up, and it expands. This causes earthquakes and volcanic eruptions to occur.

As for the fact that our planet is a capacitor, there can be no doubt. Almost all objects have capacitance, and a large object like Earth would have a large capacitance. That Earth is fully charge is also quite apparent. There is a continuous input coming from the Sun in the form of the Auroras, there is cosmic rays constantly hitting our planet, and there are visible discharges out into space in the form of Sprites and Elves. These are all visible signs of Earth being a fully charged capacitor.

The natural tendency of a capacitor that has started to expand would be to continue doing so whenever there is an excess of charge. It will try to accommodate for the extra charge by increasing its capacitance, and the only way to do so is through expansion.

If gravity is a function of charge rather than mass, then gravity will increase. As Earth expands in order to accommodate for the extra charge being pushed onto it, its gravity increases.

Expanding Earth seen from the South Pole

Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth

The standard textbook position on geology and gravity is that Earth is a fixed size planet and that gravity has been unchanged since the time of its creation. Nothing has changed. The world as we know it today is as it has always been, give or take a few centigrades in temperature and a few extra oxygen and carbon-dioxide molecules in the atmosphere.

However, this position flies in the face of two observations. One being the curious fact that all continents fit together to form a smaller sphere if oceans are removed. From geological dating and observations of the structure of sea-floors, it is clear that oceans are relatively new compared to the continental crusts. Visible evidence supports the idea that our planet is growing.

Secondly, the enormous size of the dinosaurs strongly suggest that gravity was less strong in their time.

By Matt Martyniuk

Own work, CC BY 3.0, Link

These two observations have lead to the conclusion by some that Earth has increased in volume and that gravity has increased as a consequence.

All proponents of the expanding Earth model believe that gravity has increased as a consequence of expansion, and that the size of the dinosaurs can thus be explained. However, an expanding planet would, according to Newton's model of gravity, result in lower surface gravity. Unless enormous amount of matter were added to our planet every year, surface gravity would be falling.

Without any mechanism to explain the required accumulation of dense matter inside our planet, the expanding Earth model rests on shaky ground. Even with considerable amount of visible evidence on its side, people hesitate to embrace the expanding Earth model due to a lack of explanation as to how expansion results in greater surface gravity.

To save the expanding Earth model we have to explain how dense matter can accumulate inside our planet, or we have to abandon Newton's presumption about gravity being a force where mass pulls on mass.

The only alternative to Newton's model is that gravity is charge that pulls on mass, and if we use this model, then we do in fact get a viable explanation for the increased surface gravity. As our planet has expanded, its capacitance has increased. The added capacitance has in turn resulted in a more charged planet, and hence a stronger gravitational field.

Such a capacitor model of gravity requires no added matter. All that it requires is that our planet has grown in size. A hollow gas-filled core can make up for the extra volume.

Using a capacitor model of gravity, all the observed evidence makes sense. There is no longer any need for a mysterious mechanism in which dense matter accumulates inside our planet.

However, some people remain skeptical to the expanding Earth model even though it is fully explained using an electrical model of gravity. They are unimpressed by the enormous amount of visible evidence, and they keep insisting that expansion cannot be happening.

Most of the people who remain skeptical to the expanding Earth model, remain so because they refuse to abandon Newton's model of gravity in which mass attracts mass. This is understandable in as far as it is true that Newton's model is incompatible with the idea of an expanding Earth. Some people are apparently so attached to Newton's interpretation that they simply refuse to abandon it even in the face of overwhelming evidence against it.

What is harder to understand is the rather large community of people who believe that gravity is an electrical force and that it has increased over time, yet still refuse to believe that Earth is expanding.

If gravity is an electrical force that has increased over time, then it must be because Earth is somehow more electrical today than it was back in the time of the dinosaurs. Earth must hold more charge, or be more electrical active in some way. But does this not require a change to its geometry? For a spherical capacitor to hold more charge, it has to expand. For a spherical shape to conduct more electricity, it must likewise change its geometry.

The idea that gravity is electrical, yet not requiring a change in geometry in order to change is very strange. It presumes that a planet is somehow underutilized, that it has unused capacitance or conductivity. But that's hardly credible in a universe awash with electricity. Our planet is directly connected to the Sun through the auroras. How can it avoid being fully charged at all times?

The most credible explanation for electric gravity changing over time is that planets are fully charged at all times and that the increase in charge is due to extra capacitance resulting from a change in geometry. An expanding sphere is precisely what is required to explain an increase in electric gravity.

The overwhelming amount of visual evidence in support of the expanding Earth model is indirect proof that the electrical model of gravity is correct. Why then the hostility against the expanding Earth model from so many Electric Universe advocates?

Einstein in Trouble?

Before NASA's space probe Juno made measurements of Jupiter's atmosphere by bouncing microwaves off of it, most scientists were expecting to find a small high density core at Jupiter's heart. However, Juno found the opposite of what was generally expected. It found a large low-density core, and this discovery has the potential to completely upset the standard model.

The fact that none of the established theories of gravity predicted Jupiter's low-density core is in itself a big blow to the standard model. Predicting a planet's density-distribution is after all a basic part of any theory of gravity. Yet the only model that explicitly predicted a low-density core was the capacitor model, known only to a handful of amateur scientists.

However, the problem for the standard model does not stop at the fact that it failed to predict the density distribution of Jupiter. Central to the standard model is the existence of black holes at the center of galaxies. Without them, the gravity theories used in the standard model cannot explain the observed facts. But the latest findings from Jupiter makes the existence of black holes even less likely than they already were.

A black hole is supposed to be created in a so called gravitational collapse in which matter converges on a single point at the center of large objects. The idea is that matter rushes in towards the point of highest density, assumed to be at the object's geometrical center. However, Jupiter is showing us that its greatest density is not located in its core but in a spherical area at a considerable distance from the center, precisely as predicted by the capacitor model.

If the atmosphere of Jupiter was to collapse toward its area of highest density, we would not get a black hole, but a shell of extra dense gas located pretty much exactly where the highest density of Jupiter's atmosphere is currently located.

Assuming that there is nothing particularly special about Jupiter, we have to conclude that all large bodies have a similar density distribution. Stars. planets and moons all have their densest regions located fairly close to the surface. As a consequence, super-dense objects are unlikely to exist. Black holes and neutron stars which are only theoretically possible in a universe where gravity focuses matter onto a single point at the center of large bodies, have no way of being generated.

This means that Hawking's black holes are in trouble, and Einstein is in trouble too because Hawking's black holes are needed in order to make observations agree with Einstein's theory. Hawking did his work for the purpose of propping up Einstein. Now that Hawking's black holes are in trouble, Einstein's theory of gravity is in trouble too.

Not only did Einstein fail to predict Jupiter's low-density core, his theory does not explain galaxies and pulsars. Without the existence of super-dense matter, the standard model has no way to reconcile observations with Einstein's predictions. Einstein may of course still be right in parts. However, his theory is unlikely to remain a dominant part of cosmology in the absence of super-dense matter.

Cross section of a hollow planet

Super-Dense Matter does not Exist in an Electric Universe

The standard model of gravity and the universe is full of speculations about super-dense matter. There are neutron stars and black holes believed to exist throughout the universe, and our own planet is thought to have a super-dense core, a crystal of some kind.

All of this is predicated on the assumption that gravity is a mono-pole force, drawing matter in towards the center of large bodies. The larger the bodies, the greater the pressure is at the core.

However, the electrical model of the universe has gravity as a dipole force, and most dipole models will predict a cavity at the center of large bodies. The point of maximum pressure is not at the geometrical center of bodies, but in the outer layers.

In an electrical universe, large bodies do not necessarily have a denser composition than smaller bodies made of the same material. There is no central point where all matter is drawn, so there cannot be a super-dense core. The outer layers where the highest density is found is spread out over a large surface.

Without a central point towards which a so called gravitational collapse can focus, black holes and neutron stars cannot form, and there can be no super-dense crystal at the center of our planet.

Recent measurements of Jupiter seems to confirm this conclusion in that Jupiter's core appears to be less dense than its outer layers. Also, a paper presented by Jan Lamprecht in 2003 shows how seismic data related to our planet is easier to interpret using a hollow Earth model than a solid Earth model.

Evidence is adding up in support of the electric universe model in which planets, stars and moons are likely to be hollow rather than solid to the core.

Cross-section of a hollow planet

The Long Necks of Dinosaurs

When Earth was the size of Mars, gravity on our planet was not half of what it is today. It was much less than that. It was closer to the 38% value that we have measured on the surface of Mars. It may even have been lower than that.

The reason we can say this with confidence is that gravity cannot have been a big issue as far as the dinosaurs were concerned. Their long necks prove this quite decisively.

Had gravity been half that of what we have today, then the long necks of the dinosaurs would still have been a problem. The shape of dinosaurs would have resembled that of Elephants rather than a cross between a swan and a giraffe.

There is a good reason the African Elephant is shaped like a box. It is an animal under tremendous gravitational stress. Its shape is as compact as it is because of the force of gravity. The elephant is even equipped with a trunk so that it does not need to bend down to the grass below or stretch up to the foliage above to feed itself.

The long necked dinosaurs didn't seem to have any trouble with gravity. A long fleshy tail and a swan-like neck is a far cry from the Elephant's wimpy little tail and box-like shape.

By Tom Parker - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

Gravity on Mars

The diameter of Mars is a little over half that of Earth. Using the standard model of gravity and assuming all else to be equal between Mars and Earth, Mars' surface gravity should be a little over half that of Earth. This is because the standard model of gravity predicts a linear relationship between diameter and surface gravity for objects of the same density.

However, Mars is a red planet. It has a surface rich in iron, so its surface is more dense than that of Earth which is less rich in iron. Assuming that surface density is an indication of the density throughout the planet, surface gravity on Mars should come out a little stronger than what is predicted based purely on its diameter. A surface gravity at about 60% of what we have on Earth would be a reasonable estimate.

Using the same logic, we see that our Moon has a diameter a little over half that of Mars, so its surface gravity should be a little over half that of Mars based solely on diameter. However, the Moon, like Earth, has a surface with little iron in it. This should reduce the surface gravity a little relative to Mars, making it pretty much exactly half that of Mars.

As it turns out, surface gravity on the Moon is 44% that of Mars, a little less than we would expect based solely on diameter and apparent density. However, surface gravity on Mars is a mere 38% that of Earth, way less than the 60% expected.

The low surface gravity on Mars is truly perplexing in light of the standard model. The only way to explain this is that Earth must have a super-dense core, and hence we have come to believe that all planets, and our own planet in particular, is composed of matter that increases in density as we get closer to the core.

However, recent measurements of Jupiter, using a microwave gun attached to the space probe Juno, indicate that Jupiter is less dense in its interior compared to its outer layers. Jupiter appears to be hollow.

The only gravity model that predicted the hollow found at the core of Jupiter is the capacitor model, and it turns out that this same model can also explain why Mars has such a low surface gravity relative to Earth.

What makes Earth and Mars very different is not the makeup of their surface, but the fact that Earth appears to have grown from a Mars size planet to the size it has today. Earth has increased its capacitance due to its expansion, and capacitance increases exponentially with diameter. Instead of a linear increase in gravity relative to diameter, there has been an exponential increase in gravity relative to diameter.

The predictions of the capacitor model is that Earth should have significantly higher surface gravity than Mars due to its significantly higher capacitance. Likewise, Mars which shows some sign of initial expansion (Valles Marineris), should have a somewhat higher than expected surface gravity relative to our Moon which shows no sign of expansion.

Using the capacitor model of gravity, everything adds up. There is no need for a super-dense core at the center of our planet, and the recent discovery that Jupiter is hollow is a confirmation of the model's validity.

Mars

By NASA / USGS (see PIA04304 catalog page) - http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-mars.html http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/mars/marsglobe1.jpg, Public Domain, Link

When Ignorance Becomes Dogma

A hundred years ago, before the ocean floors were mapped and dated by scientists, there were two competing theories about the crust of our planet. The oldest and most established one was the theory that our planet was growing, and the newer competing theory was that our planet was fixed size, and that continents drifted about willy-nilly.

With no data to prove that the ocean floors were much younger than the continental crust, and with the newer competing theory having the advantage of modernity, the scientists at the time settled on the fixed size planet theory. The utterly unscientific concept of subduction was embraced, and the idea that planets could expand was rejected.

Soon after this, the fixed sized Earth became orthodox dogma. Never mind the illogical and perplexing mechanisms required, all research into continental spread had to be within the accepted framework of a fixed size world.

By the time the seafloors were finally mapped and dated, completely vindicating the expanding Earth model, it was too late. The fixed size model was by then orthodox dogma. No amount of evidence could any longer prove it wrong. What had been a decision based on ignorance had become a profound and self-evident insight.

For the full story: https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-brief-explanation-of-the-plate-tectonic-theory/answer/Fernando-Martin-Maroto

Expanding Earth seen from the south pole

Quacks and Alchemists

The fact that Jupiter is hollow is exposing modern scientist as quacks and alchemists. Not a single one of them predicted the hollow core. This can only mean that all the settled science on the subject of gravity must be wrong, or else they would have predicted the measurements made by Juno.

Also, if large bodies are hollow, there can be no super-dense objects. There can be no neutron stars or black holes. The geniuses of science that policy makers rely so heavily upon in their effort  to social engineer our society, have been exposed as clueless quacks.

Engineering efforts based on the predictions of the standard model of gravity are now based on nothing. The holy grail of controlled fusion which has cost tax payers billions of dollars is nothing more than an alchemist's dream. The premise that our Sun has a super-dense core in which controlled fusion is taking place, no longer holds. What was thought to be solid science turned out to be nothing but wishful thinking.

The politically managed science of the past century has not given us enlightenment, nor has it given us any great technological breakthroughs. It has pretended to give us certainty and a road-map for the future. Politically managed science was going to propel humanity forward while simultaneously save the world from the certain destruction of climate change. But how convincing is this argument now that it is clear that the geniuses of science were unable to predict something as simple as the inside of a planet. Wasn't gravity supposed to be settled science?

The fact that Jupiter is hollow is nothing less than a Copernican revolution. We are entering the Copernican twilight zone where everybody knows Copernicus is right, but no one dares say it. Once the full implication of Jupiter's hollow core becomes clearly understood by the political elite, they will demand the findings hushed down and trivialized, and the established "facts" to be defended at all cost. 

There will be no Nobel Prize for the capacitor model that predicted Jupiter's hollow core. There will be no Hollywood movie to honor the scientists that came up with the model. The political elite will do everything in their power to suppress  the facts. The political elite of today knows, just like the Pope knew 500 years ago,  that once a Copernican revolution has run its course, their power over the people they aspire to rule is going to be significantly weakened.

The fact that Jupiter is hollow will be hushed down and rarely mentioned. There will be no big announcement to celebrate this truly revolutionary finding.

By NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS/Kevin M. Gill - https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA22946.jpg, Public Domain, Link

Implications of a Hollow Jupiter

If Jupiter is hollow, as initial measurements by NASA seem to indicate, then the implications are enormous.

Not only would this imply that all planets are likely to be hollow, stars would be hollow too. The standard model of stars would have to be abandoned. With no super-dense core, there can be no fusion happening in their interior.

Our standard understanding of gravity would have to be changed too. The capacitor model, or some similar model of gravity, would replace the current one. The electric universe model would most likely emerge as the new paradigm of cosmology.

Cross section of a hollow planet

Where is Jupiter's Rocky Surface?

The smaller planets of our solar system have solid rocky surfaces, and our Sun looks like it has a liquid rock (magma) surface. But Jupiter, unlike the Sun and the smaller planets, appears to have a large and diffuse core. There does not seem to be any rocky surface under the cloud cover of Jupiter.

This is odd, because Jupiter has the appearance of being on its way to become a brown dwarf star. It may never become a brown dwarf, but it could become one if it grew larger. However, to become a star, it would necessarily have to produce the same sort of liquid surface that our Sun has. Where would the minerals come from?

Jupiter's lack of a rocky surface is also in conflict with the idea that gas giants once had a rocky surface, and that they became gas giants through venting of their interior atmospheres. If Jupiter had a solid rock surface, where has it gone?

It appears as if the rocky surface presumed to have existed before Jupiter became a gas giant has disappeared only to necessarily reappear should Jupiter one day become a brown dwarf. The rocky surface of Jupiter is hiding somewhere.

The answer to this mystery is likely to be found in the thick atmosphere of Jupiter. There is simply no other place for the rocky surface of Jupiter to be hiding. If Jupiter had a rocky surface in a distant past and needs to produce a rocky surface in the event of it turning into a brown dwarf, then the missing minerals must be found in Jupiter's atmosphere.

A highly corrosive atmosphere, such as the one we know to exist on Venus, a planet on its way to become a gas planet, has eaten up the entire rocky shell of Jupiter. Gas planets consume their shells so that no rocky surface remain. All the minerals that formed Jupiter's rocky surface have been mixed into Jupiter's atmosphere, and this is how things will remain as long as Jupiter stays relatively cool.

However, if Jupiter were to heat up enough to become a brown dwarf, the minerals of its atmosphere would recombine. A thin film of liquid rock would form towards the top of its atmosphere. Jupiter would again have a rocky surface. It would be a star with a magma surface just like our Sun.

Jupiter

By NASA, ESA, and J. Nichols (University of Leicester), Public Domain, Link

Electrical Mountains

The major mountain ranges of the world exist in areas with a lot of geological activity. Earthquakes are common where mountains are plentiful. That makes it logical to conclude that mountains are in fact the result of geological activity.

However, some mountains exist in areas with little geological activity, and the peculiar shape and form of some of these suggest that something other than earthquakes may have formed them.

An interesting theory regarding such mountains is that they may have been formed quite rapidly in catastrophic electrical events. Return strikes of lightning on sandy beaches are known to draw sand up into petrified structures. In the case of tremendous lightning strikes of catastrophic proportions, entire mountains may be produced.

Devil's Tower

By Nathaniel H. Darton - U.S. Geological Survey Photographic Library, Public Domain, Link

Jupiter's Large and Diffuse Core

The spacecraft Juno has revealed that Jupiter has a large and diffuse core. Using various types of equipment, the core was measured to extend up to half of Jupiter's 70.000 kilometre radius, but is only 7 to 25 Earth masses of a total of 318 Earth masses.

With a total mass almost 320 times that of Earth, Jupiter's core should be at least 40 Earth masses according to the standard model. That's evidently not the case. Jupiter's core is substantially less dense than the outer layers of Jupiter.

This fact squares up well with the predictions of the Capacitor Model of Gravity. According to this model, all planets are likely to have a low density hollow at their centre.

By NASA, ESA, and A. Simon (Goddard Space Flight Center), Public Domain, Link

Spending Time Wisely

Wealth is not measured solely in physical assets but also in time. The point of wealth is not merely to own stuff, but to have time to enjoy life. The only purpose of physical assets is to make life enjoyable, to give us time to do what we want to do.

From this it follows that it makes little sense to spend a lot of time doing things that we'd rather not want to do in order to acquire physical assets. The effort to acquire assets should be as pleasant as possible. That way, we can enjoy life while we're working towards the goal of enjoying life even more.

This means that we should try to live our lives as if we were rich already. Avoid tasks that we do not plan to spend time doing the day our ship comes in. Whatever we dream of doing if we were rich should largely define what we do with our lives in the present.

If our goal is to spend time out golfing, then why not take up golfing right away? If we dream of spending more time with friends and family, do this right away. Live as richly as possible.

Time spent acquiring physical wealth should be kept to a minimum. Investments and savings should not occupy our time more than absolutely necessary, and a few very simple principles can help us achieve exactly that.

First of all, we have to recognize that our current financial system is hostile to conventional savings. Real interest rates are negative, so saving money in the bank is both risky and guaranteed to give a loss over time.

Sound money like gold and silver, on the other hand, tend to gain purchasing power in line with the productivity increases of society. Sound money does not yield interest, since sound money is no longer used by banks, but it is still better than fiat money kept in banks.

Then there are real estate which gives us the opportunity to live in our own investment. Owning our own house or flat is a great way to enjoy savings right away.

Stocks and bonds are good ways to save too. However, only if they are managed by others. The time spent following the day to day moves of individual stocks are seldom worth the effort. Very few people see themselves spending their lives doing this if they were rich enough to avoid it, so it makes no sense to spend time doing this when there are good alternatives like buying an index fund.

A good portfolio of assets consists of sound money, real estate, and index funds. The only management required on our part is the allocation to each of these classes, and for this there are historical charts to guide us, such as the Dow-Gold ratio, the S&P Price Earning ratio, and the real estate to gold ratio.

A comfortable home

By Vesahjr - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Stalinism in Science

Universities are closed institutions. Uncontroversial ideas are not met with an open mind and debate, but shut down and suppressed. People who do not conform, but stubbornly insist on highlighting inconsistencies in current theory are ignored, fired, and revised out of text books.

This practice is not a relic of the past but alive and well today. If anything, it's more institutionalized now then ever before. Peer reviews function as inquisitional courts of modern science. They do not exist in order to enlighten, but to make sure that heretics are identified and neutralized.

If it was any other way, universities would recognize a wide array of theories and models. The fact that they don't, tells us the sad truth: Universities are Stalinist institutions, complete with inquisitional courts, revisionism of history and purges of dissidents.

Protest

By Dan Aasland - Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0, Link

Variable Constants

The existence of arbitrary constants like the gravitational constant G is a strong indication that a theory is nothing more than an empirical observation, and when such constants turn out to be extremely difficult to pin down exactly, the suspicion grows that something more fundamental is going on.

Not only is the gravitational constant G, not constant, the speed of light in vacuum is not constant either. Any theory relying on C, the supposedly constant speed of light is therefore flawed.

It is evident that something much more fundamental is going on than conventional science is telling us.

Aether of zero-point particles surrounding an electron

Have Dinosaur Bones Grown?

One way to explain the enormous size of dinosaur bones is to suggest that they have grown over time. If the bones have grown, then the mystery of how the dinosaurs could have been as large as they appear to have been would be solved.

At the face of it, this theory seems to have merit. However, it has two major problems, first of which is an implied assumption that the continental shelves where the fossils have been found are growing. This is not the case. It is the oceans that have grown. The shelves have remained unchanged in extent.

Earth expansion as seen from the south pole

A second problem is that fossils sometimes come as complete skeletons, with every bone perfectly laid out in the correct relative position to every other bone. This would be very difficult to explain if the bones have grown unless everything around the bones have grown at the exact same pace. The bones would be a mess, partially grown into each other and with proportions all out of whack. Without a good explanation as to how a synchronized growth mechanism would work, the theory that dinosaur bones have grown over time seems unlikely to be correct.

Do Planets Modulate the Sun's Energy Output?

The Sun goes through 11 year cycles that increase and decrease in intensity in longer cycles, generally referred to as warm periods and little ice ages due to their climatic impacts.

The cause of these cycles are unknown. However, a close correlation between sun cycles and planetary resonances seem to suggest that it is the relative positions of the Sun and its planets that determines the energy output of the Sun.

This makes sense in an Electrical Universe perspective, since the relative position of the various objects in our solar system would determine the exact flow of the electrical current going through it. Certain configurations would lead to more current flowing through the planets, leaving less current for the Sun. Other configurations would result in the opposite. This rhymes well with the observed fact that electrical activity seems to increase on our planet whenever it decreases on the Sun.

The Sun and the Earth

Mountain Ranges on an Expanding Earth

If our planet is expanding, then the old continental plates have to constantly break in order to fit onto the expanded globe. This would result in uplifting in the areas where these cracks are formed.

Typical areas where cracks would form would be where landmasses protrude out into the expanding areas and central regions of large continental plates.

Europe is a continent of peninsulas, and is therefore a good example of the first kind of cracks. Italy for instance, protrudes into the Mediterranean Sea, and the crack formed is the Alps. The Iberian peninsula is pushed up relative to France, and the resulting mountain range is the Pyrenees,

Deep into Russia, we find the second kind. The Ural Mountains is the crack that separate Europe from Asia. It was formed as the Eurasian Plate cracked.

The tall mountains of Norway is an example of the third kind. Those mountains were pushed up when the Atlantic Ocean started to form.

The Andes and the Cascade Mountains of South and North America are examples of mountains being pushed up due to the expansion of the Pacific Ocean. These are similar to the mountains found in Norway. However, while the uplifting has long since stopped in Norway, it is ongoing in the Americas.

The Rockies on the other hand were formed where the North American continent cracked. The Rockies are similar to the Ural in that they are inland mountain ranges formed as the large continental plate cracks.

The Himalayas, the huge mountain range that separates the Indian sub-continent from the rest of Asia, were formed in the same way as the Alps and the Pyrenees. The protruding landmass was forced up as the Indian Ocean expanded, and the crack formed where the Himalayas are today.

If we took away the oceans and proceeded to fold back the continents to form a smaller globe, we would find that this could be done by simply folding along the mountain ranges. In doing so, the mountains would be smoothed out to form flat plains. The ancient planet was in other words a relatively flat place with few mountains compared to what we have today.

The fact that mountain ranges form in relatively predictable places is added evidence to the expanding Earth hypothesis. There is nothing random about the location of mountain ranges. Using the expanding Earth model, their location are easy to explain.

Expanding Earth seen from the South Pole

Are Stars Electrical Accelerators?

If stars are externally powered, as suggested by the Electrical Universe Theory, then where does the external power come from? What is the external source that powers all the stars in the universe?

The answer to this question may be that it is in fact the stars themselves that provide the electricity. If stars are made of relatively dense material, and Hydrogen and Helium ions are radiated from their surface through fission, then the energy going in towards a star is likely to be less than the energy going out from it. In other words, the process is likely to be exothermic.

In such a scenario, stars will function as electrical accelerators, radiating more energy than they consume. Particles will become ever more energetic and plentiful over time. The extremely high energy of cosmic rays can thus be explained.

Such a process can go on for a very long time. However, at some point there will be no more material to fission into cosmic rays. The accelerations will stop. But this will not be the end. The radiation from stars and galaxies will combine into enormous electrical currents which in turn collapse in on themselves (z-pinch) producing new stars and galaxies.

The collapse will fuse dust and rubble together. Heavy material will be produced through fusion. Although bright and hot, the collapse is endothermic. The new stars will have the same qualities as the old ones. They will be made of heavy material that will fission and accelerate cosmic rays. Everything starts afresh.

In such a universe there is no beginning and no end, only an eternal process of birth, death and rebirth.

Hourglass nebula

By NASA, R. Sahai, J. Trauger (JPL), and The WFPC2 Science Team - http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/opo9607a/, Public Domain, Link

Stating the Obvious

Forking over trillions of dollars to corporations and bureaucrats does not save the planet.

Light conversation

Comets and Stars

It has lately become clear that comets are not "dirty snowballs" as earlier believed, but rocky objects with no obvious source of water anywhere. This is odd because the tails of comets contain water. Where does that water come from if comets are rocks?

The answer to this may be that the water is synthesized electrically through fission. Hydrogen and oxygen atoms are ripped out of the rock so to speak, and combined to form water.

One indication that this is in fact what is happening is the abundance of Deuterium in the water coming off comets. Measurements made by the Rosetta spacecraft showed that Deuterium is three times as abundant in comet water as it is on Earth, and this is exactly what we should expect from synthetic water. Heavy elements contain an abundance of Neutrons. Fission of rock into Hydrogen would therefore have a tendency to produce the heavy Deuterium version of Hydrogen rather than plain Hydrogen.

But if it is the case that comets produce light elements through fission, could it not be the case that the exact same mechanism happens at a grand scale on stars. The electrical stress on comets is after all trivial compared to what must be happening near the surface of stars.

The fact that comets appear to be rocky objects capable of synthesizing lighter elements lends support to the idea that stars too are rocky objects, and that they too synthesize lighter elements. The reason stars appear to be made mainly of Hydrogen is not because they are made of Hydrogen but because Hydrogen is synthesized in great abundance right at their surface.

Comet

By Philipp Salzgeber - http://salzgeber.at/astro/pics/9703293.html, CC BY-SA 2.0 at, Link

The Density of Earth

It is generally believed that our planet has a super-dense core,

This springs from the fact that gravity measured at the surface of our planet is very strong, and a strong gravitational field implies dense matter, assuming Newton was right about gravity being mass attracting mass.

Rocks and minerals found at the surface of our planet are not dense enough to account for the gravitational field, so the assumption is that there must be a lot of denser stuff deeper down. This makes sense because heavy stuff sink into lighter stuff. However, there is a problem with this idea, and that is the fact that there is no net gravity at the center of our planet. There is no reason for dense stuff to accumulate in the center of our planet. In fact, the opposite seems more likely.

In the absence of gravity, the centripetal force of our rotating planet becomes dominant in the region close to the center of our planet. This means that dense stuff is pushed outwards in this area. Using Newton's theory of gravity, we are more likely to find a gas filled hollow at the center of our planet than a super-dense core. Yet we require a super-dense core in order to explain the gravitational force. Density has to increase all the way down.

However, using the capacitor model of gravity, no super-dense core is required. The capacitor model does not require an increase in density all the way to the core, nor does it predict it, The capacitor model predicts that the densest stuff will be found roughly half way between the inner and outer surface of our hollow planet. It predicts a substantially less dense planet.

This in turn, has significant implications when it comes to how seismic data is to be interpreted. Sound waves travel slower in a less dense medium. That means that earthquakes that appear to be happening at depths up to 700 km, are in fact happening closer to the surface. It also means that seismic waves do not travel through the core of our planet, but around the perimeter. It means that Jan Lamprecht was right in his interpretation of seismic data.

Cross section of a hollow planet

Is Exothermic Fusion a Myth?

It is generally believed that stars produce energy through nuclear fusion at their core. This assumption rests on spectral analysis of the light coming from stars, including our sun, that reveals large quantities of Hydrogen and Helium.

The idea is that stars are mainly made of Hydrogen which is fused into Helium at the great pressures assumed to be at the center of stars. However, plain Hydrogen does not fuse readily into Helium. Only the rare isotope called Deuterium can fuse into Helium.

Deuterium is produced by fusing a Neutron onto a Proton. This is an endothermic process, and it is only because some of this energy is released when two Deuterium atoms fuse into Helium that we get energy produced. However the total energy requirement for the production of Helium by fusing together two Protons and two Neutrons may well be larger than the energy produced. The total process may be endothermic, rather than exothermic.

The reason we see a lot of Hydrogen and Helium in the light specter of stars is not necessarily because they are made of these elements, but because these elements are produced from heavier elements that is heated to millions of degrees in the corona. The abundance of Hydrogen and Helium might very well be the bi-product of fission.

The surface of our Sun, which is clearly liquid in nature, is not necessarily some kind of exotic Hydrogen, but something as mundane as liquid rock, also known as magma. When bits of this magma is thrown up and heated to millions of degrees in the corona, Hydrogen and Helium, as well as other light elements are produced.

The Sun

By NASA/SDO (AIA) - http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/browse/2010/08/19/20100819_003221_4096_0304.jpg, Public Domain, Link

Newton's Hollow Earth

Contrary to what some believe, hollow planets are not in violation with Newton's law of gravity. Newton's contemporary Edmond Halley presented a paper in 1692 suggesting that our planet is hollow, and Newton did not object to this when he reviewed it.

The reason Newton did not protest was that the notion of a hollow Earth is in full agreement with Newton's Shell Theorem, which forms the basis of most calculations regarding gravity. According to this theorem, there is no net gravitational pull inside a hollow shell. There is nothing to pull matter towards the center inside a hollow planet, so a hollow, once formed, will remain in place.

The main divergence between Newton's gravitational model and the capacitor model of gravity is in what happens if a hollow planet was to expand. According to Newton, surface gravity would decrease with expansion unless matter was added in the process. However, the capacitor model predicts an increase in surface gravity with expansion, even without any added matter. This is because a growing shell increases its electrical capacitance with expansion.

Cross section of a planet as a hollow spherical capacitor

The capacitor model further predicts a hollow to be expected, while Newton's model merely allows for it. The capacitor model also predicts an element of repulsion between large bodies in close proximity to each other, making collisions less likely than what Newton's model predicts.

The essential difference between the capacitor model and Newton's model is that the capacitor model suggests that it is charge that attracts mass, while Newton's hypothesis is that it is mass that attracts mass. The difference in practical terms are in fact small. By and large, the two models predict identical behavior. The difference in what these models predict are limited to the case of expanding planets and large bodies in extreme close proximity to each other.