Last month Miles Mathis mauled [amongst others] the Electric Universe movement.
They hook you by admitting what you already know: the upper levels of the mainstream are composed of a bunch of liars and frauds, and textbook physics is little more than an embarrassing edifice of fudged math and bad theory.
Using real plasma physics as ballast, they then cobble together an electric universe replacement for the old tinkertoy gravity model, and you feel like you have made some progress.
But your progress is illusory, because the Thunderbolts were created to fail.
Not only are their theories shallow and extremely limited, but they are purposely created to self-destruct upon any serious reading.
Is the Electric Universe Controlled Opposition?
Miles Mathis – 1 May 2018
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if someone [somewhere] returned the compliment.
Indeed, it is possible the Electric Universe movement has [either by accident or design] adopted some attributes associated with a limited hangout and controlled opposition.
The phrase “The Electric Universe” is a very misleading but very successful marketing meme.
The problem being:
It overemphasises Electricity at the expense of Magnetism and Fluid Dynamics.
The clear risk being the marketing meme can easily morph into a Limited Hangout.
However, in the wider context, it’s very likely that someone [somewhere] has expressed similar sentiments about every other theory that’s ever been promoted.
Personally, I’m well past the point of caring.
That’s because my preference is to prioritise observational data and descriptions.
And it’s the observational data and descriptions that make the Lorentz Force so very interesting – especially if you’re an Electric Universe evangelist.
On the one hand:
Wikipedia apes the academic tradition of pretending to understand what they don’t understand by reducing the Lorentz Force to a mathematical motion model that employs straight line vectors to describe dynamic helical motion in a fluid.
Even the more helpful mainstream representations of the Lorentz Force prefer to avoid the concept of dynamic helical motion by illustrating circular motion.
Watch the associated YouTube video by clicking here.
On the other hand:
The Electric Universe does provide a diagram that includes dynamic helical motion in the context of the Lorentz Force but [for some unfathomable reason] prefers to emphasise and illustrate a “field-aligned relativistic electron producing X-ray wavelength synchrotron radiation” aka gobbledegook.
We note in passing that secondary effects of relativistic electrons spiraling around magnetic field lines in space are often detected in the form of synchrotron radiation.
From consideration of the Lorentz Force Law, we know that there must therefore be an electric field aligned with the magnetic field and that the axial movement of the spiraling electrons with a velocity component parallel to the magnetic field constitutes a field-aligned current.
These currents are Birkeland currents; they occur at many cosmic scales.
Chapter 4 – Electromagnetism – 4.3 The Lorentz Force Law
Essential Guide to the EU – Bob Johnson and Jim Johnson – 4 Nov 2011
The Thunderbolts Project
While back in the observational domain:
Independent observers might consider the Lorentz Force is best illustrated by the dynamic helical motion of the Solar System as it hurtles through space.
The orbital speed of the Solar System about the center of the Milky Way is approximately 251 km/s (156 mi/s).
At this speed, it takes around 1,190 years for the Solar System to travel a distance of 1 light-year, or 7 days to travel 1 AU.
Watch the associated YouTube video by clicking here.
Or the dynamic helical motion of the Milky Way as it spirals through space.
Another reference frame is provided by the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
The Milky Way is moving at 552 ± 6 km/s (1,235,000 ± 13,000 mph) with respect to the photons of the CMB, toward 10.5 right ascension, −24° declination (J2000 epoch, near the center of Hydra).
To watch the associated YouTube video click here.
(3) The theory I propose may therefore be called a theory of the Electromagnetic Field, because it has to do with the space in the neighbourhood of the electric or magnetic bodies, and it may be called a Dynamical Theory, because it assumes that in that space there is matter in motion, by which the observed electromagnetic phenomena are produced.
A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field – James Clerk Maxwell – 1865
A system that’s been spun up by the Lorentz Force creates a Dynamic Vortex Pressure [aka Gravity] that sorts [aka sequences] the embedded objects by density.
Pressure in a Vortex
The fluid motion in a vortex creates a dynamic pressure (in addition to any hydrostatic pressure) that is lowest in the core region, closest to the axis, and increases as one moves away from it, in accordance with Bernoulli’s Principle.
One can say that it is the gradient of this pressure that forces the fluid to follow a curved path around the axis.
A system that’s been spun up by the Lorentz Force creates the Dynamic Vortex Pressure that [also] induces embedded objects to spin due to the Magnus Effect.
The Magnus effect is an observable phenomenon that is commonly associated with a spinning object that drags air faster around one side, creating a difference in pressure that moves it in the direction of the lower-pressure side.
Conceptionally, this creates a Clockwork Universe that embraces multiple levels of nested Magnetohydrodynamic Cogs that are ultimately driven by the Lorentz Force.
Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is the study of the magnetic properties of electrically conducting fluids.
Examples of such magneto-fluids include plasmas, liquid metals, salt water, and electrolytes.
The word “magneto-hydro-dynamics” is derived from magneto- meaning magnetic field, hydro- meaning water, and dynamics meaning movement.
The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970.
This also creates a paradigm that someone [somewhere] will describe as a limited hangout, controlled opposition or fruitcake fiction.
The reader is encouraged [as always] to review the evidence and draw their own conclusions.