Thursday, April 23, 2009

Shedding Some Electricity On Jupiter

Planetary rings are electromagnetic and not gravitational.

Planetary rings orbit in a flat plane perpindicular to the lines of force of the local magnetic field.

Stephen Smith: Shedding Some Light On Jupiter.

Jupiter’s rings were unknown until about thirty years ago [Voyager 1]. Recent data analysis from the Galileo spacecraft reveals electric currents flowing around the planet, just as EU theorists predicted.

A recent announcement by scientists from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA and the University of Maryland states that Jupiter’s rings are actually electrically charged. Douglas Hamilton, a planetary scientist from the University of Maryland wrote:

"On Jupiter's day side, the sunlight charges the dust particles positively, while on the night side the particles carry a negative charge. Different charges react differently to Jupiter's magnetic field, leading to changes in particle orbits, and when conditions are right, even the tilt or inclinations of the ring particles change.”
Said plainly, orbits are controlled by electromagnetism and not gravitation.

Jupiter's rings are formed out of a thin sheet of material encircling the planet. The ring structure is quite diffuse, making observations difficult unless they are in correct alignment with the Sun. The outer radius begins at 129,000 kilometers, almost the same distance as the moon Adrastea. The four small moons, Metis, Adrastea, Amalthea and Thebe, are said to influence the structure of Jupiter’s rings in the same way that the “shepherd moons” of Saturn govern the shape of its huge ring formation.

More than four years ago Picture of the Day articles addressed the "volcanic" plumes on Jupiter's moon Io and demonstrated that they are plasma discharges from the moon to the gas giant. Some planetary scientists later began to acknowledge the electrical connection between them when Io's "footprint" was seen in the polar aurora on Jupiter. In fact, all four of Jupiter’s largest moons were discovered to leave their marks in the aurora in the shape of “tails” flowing within the plasma column. Later, when NASA launched New Horizons on a mission to study Pluto and Charon, the “plumes” of Tvashtar, a gigantic volcano on Io, were found to be filamentary in structure with indications that they are actually corona arc discharges from the electric “hot spots” linking the moon with Jupiter.

Astronomers suggested that “tides” on Io from the “kneading” effect of Jupiter’s gravity cause the charged particles to be released in the "volcanic" plumes. The particles then flow as an electric current to Jupiter. Since electricity does not flow in one direction the one-way connection cannot be correct, so how is the electricity moving between Io and Jupiter?

Conventional theories assume that the universe is electrically neutral, so when observational evidence confirms electrically active plasma for instance, localized phenomena no matter how improbable are invoked. Tidal forces and volcanoes are presented as the cause for the activity seen on Io and the evidence for electric circuits is ignored. In the case of Jupiter’s rings, the same thing is happening. The ring charge is said to be caused by sunlight and shadow rather than by an electrically active circuit between Jupiter and the Sun.

Jupiter is connected with the Sun and the Sun is connected with the Milky Way – and the Milky Way is probably connected with the Local Group and then with the Cluster and so on and so on. That idea is what forms the basis of Electric Universe Theory that all things throughout the cosmos are composed of electrically quasi-neutral conducting plasma - extremely diffuse on the large-scale but capable of transmitting currents powerful enough to energize stars and the galaxies.

An electrical interaction between Jupiter and its moons means that they are charged bodies and are not electrically neutral. Jupiter exists in a dynamic electrical relationship to the Sun and it is now known that charged particles from the Sun and not “electric dynamos" power the planetary aurorae. Just like the aurorae, the ring system on Jupiter is probably behaving in similar fashion to what is seen on Saturn, so a similar explanation is most likely correct.

The gas giant planets all have rings in some form or another. The plasma torus that surrounds each of them and the electric currents flowing along the polar axes and then out the equatorial plane are the likely cause for their persistence. No one knows for sure how planetary ring systems are formed and maintained, but rather than seeking the answer in strictly mechanical action electricity and current flow through dusty plasma will provide more reasonable explanations.


Quantum_Flux said...

A lot of interesting things to think about in this article. One bizarre thing that this makes me think of is whether Jupiter could actually turn into another sun like in Space Odyssey, like an oversized electrical fusor.

Anaconda said...


@ OilIsMastery:

You have been subjected to much abuse regarding your take on gravitational theory, both, here, on this website and at other websites, principally UniverseToday, even I have questioned your style and strategies (not your underlying challenges to gravitational theory).

But the mainstream is catching on:

A recent edition of Astronomy magazine has this eye catching cover headline:

"Is there something we don't know about GRAVITY?"

See the referenced cover of Astronomy magazine.Wallace Thornhill, an Electric Universe theorist has an extended article discussing solar system orbital dynamics on his website Holoscience. See, Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System, April 22, 2009(holoscience).Which brings up a related question: If the Newtonian gravitational description has flaws, what of Einstein's General Relativity?

I firmly reject Einstein's General Relativity for the simple reason that gravity is not due to geometry, but is a function of an intrinsic property of matter (what that 'intrinsic' property is, I don't know)

Einstein's conclusions were based on 'thought experiments' rather than observation & measurement.

(Itself, a four-square rejection of Empirical Science.)

Space does not act on matter or vice versa. The idea that space is curved is ludicrous.

And "modern" astronomy's reliance on General Relativity and gravity to explain deep-space structure has led to all kinds of fantasy: So-called "dark" matter, "dark" energy, "neutron" stars, "dark" flow, and "black holes", and last but not least, the so-called "big bang" where "something out of nothing" is created -- the ultimate "creation myth".

Some readers might think to themselves, "there he goes again, yada, yada, yada..."

But there are well respected physicists that question General Relativity. Hilton Ratcliffe is an astronomer who subscribes to the idea that astronomy should be based on strict empiricism -- imagine that!

Ratcliffe rejects General Relativity. Readers might respond, "one guy (possibly a loon), you say, so what?"

But Ratcliffe relates an interesting experience he had with several prominent and highly regarded physicists at a gathering.

As is typical at professional conference gatherings, "table talk" over supper was about issues of mutual interest.

Ratcliffe relates that the conversation was about Relativity, what surprised Ratcliffe was the tone of the discussion: "It dazzled me. Here were people discussing with great insight and authority the mathematical implications of the field equations in General Relativity. What’s more (to my great astonishment) it sounded distinctly like they were suggesting improvements to the Gospel!"

The eminent men at the table:

Professor Huseyin Yilmaz, formerly of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton University,

Professor Carroll Alley, an experimentalist physicist from the University of Maryland.

Professor Harold Puthoff, a director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin in Texas.

Ratcliffe relates: "I could contain myself no longer. “Professor Yilmaz,” I said, glancing furtively around the room and then dropping my voice to a whisper, “does that mean Einstein was wrong?” All three gentlemen laughed spontaneously at my obvious discomfort, and Hal Puthoff put his hand good-naturedly on my shoulder. “Hilton,” he said, “you don’t have to hide under the table. It’s no longer controversial to say that Einstein made mistakes. Most physicists accept that quite openly now.” I had learned one of the most valuable lessons of my life. Let’s talk Relativity."

"Most physicists accept [Einstein made mistakes]."

Now, dear, gentle readers, I hope your interest has been piqued.

So, don't take my word, see Hilton Ratcliffe's first hand account. See, The Blog of Hilton Ratcliffe, post, You can choose your friends (but not your Relativity), February 14, 2009.Why is this so important you might ask?

General Relativity is the general principle, that all the above objects and processes of "modern" astronomy rest on. The assumption is that Einstein's General Relativity (and it's field equations) is a perfect description of gravity at the cosmological level.

And it has to be absolutely "perfect" as a description of the physical relationships of gravity, or any subsequent equations (and the objects and processes those equations represent) based on it will fail to reflect the actual physical relationships out in the Universe because as equations are stacked on top of equations the original error in the "field equations" will only be magnified.

"Modern" astronomy is a house of cards built on General Relativity -- it's the mathematical justification for the menagerie of supposed astrophysical objects and processes "modern" astronomy has proclaimed so loudly as fact.

So, if General Relativity is in error by even the slightest margin it throws into question all the suppositions that rest upon it.

Judging by the conversation related by Hilton Radcliffe and the headline on the cover of Astronomy magazine, the "cat's out of the bag".

Interestingly enough, it not clear "modern" astronomers and their acolytes appreciate the import of this growing development, judging on their commets on a similar themed post.

See, UniverseToday, April 21, 2009, Do We Need a New Theory of Gravitation?The "House of Card" known as "modern" astronomy is collapsing!

Plasma Cosmology will take its place.

Quantum_Flux said...

There is no real disproof of general relativity or the curvature of spacetime and it seems unlikely there ever will be. If spacetime is curved hyperbolically or elliptically by even one part in a billion trillion, then it would still be curved even if the best instruments couldn't necessarily detect it. I see no issues with a universal coordinant system that is essentially expanding or contracting over time, but I would expect local effects (say from gravitation), which is essentially testable using atomic clocks.

Anaconda said...

Grasshopper, tell that to the physicists at the table. Tell that to the other physicists who question General Relativity.

You are a young grasshopper that styles himself as a mathematician -- I'd say "pure mathematician", but your comments, here, and your website suggest you have some regard for the limits imposed on mathematics by physical reality, and that "useful" mathematics in physics and applied material science is a creature of observation & measurement.

I know it's difficult to accept that Einstein was wrong.

But space can't be quantified (there's nothing to quantify), it's unknowable -- to project physical attributes on something that can't be quantified is the height of folly.

Yet, that is just what Einstein did.

It's a rejection of empiricism and an embracing of mysticism and religion -- Quantum_Flux, you are a religionist:

The religion of Einstein.

Einstein's ideas reject empiricism -- to the extent that you embrace Einstein, you reject empiricism and embrace mysticism.

Get to know it -- and continue praying to your god, Einstein!

OilIsMastery said...


"You have been subjected to much abuse regarding your take on gravitational theory, both, here, on this website and at other websites, principally UniverseToday"

Idiots. On account of ignorance and a lack of education. I sacrificed 2 years of my life reading Newton and Einstein in mathematics class. I'm pretty sure I know what the hell I'm talking about. And so did Leibniz, Mach, and Velikovksy, etc, who are all much smarter than I am and all rejected gravitation and spacetime. Gravitation and spacetime are absolute garbage.

"even I have questioned your style and strategies (not your underlying challenges to gravitational theory)."

Fair enough.

"I firmly reject Einstein's General Relativity"

You are wise to do so.

"The idea that space is curved is ludicrous."

Exactly. The idea that space is an empirical object is ludicrous. Space is the a priori form of our intuition and not an empirical object. The empirical objects are plasma aranged as atoms and molecules.

"But there are well respected physicists that question General Relativity. Hilton Ratcliffe is an astronomer who subscribes to the idea that astronomy should be based on strict empiricism -- imagine that!

Ratcliffe rejects General Relativity."

You don't have to convince me; you're preaching to the choir LOL.

Anaconda said...

The space-time curvature is a fantasy, the brain-child of one man, dressed up in a mathematical abstraction that is the supposed quantification of something that can't be quantified.

Quantum_Flux states: "There is no real disproof of general relativity or the curvature of spacetime and it seems unlikely there ever will be."

In other words, the theory can't be falsified.


If it can't be falsified then it is not subject to the the Empirical Scientific method, therefore, has no place in the realm of Science -- it falls in the realm of metaphysics and mysticism which ultimately relies on religious belief.

I suppose part of human nature at the deepest levels of human consciousness and the most recessed part of the human psyche has some innate need for mysticism.

Welcome to the Human Race, Grasshopper!

Anaconda said...

@ OilIsMastery:

The part of my comment addressed to you was actually more an explanation & preface to the readers of this website and hopefully acted as a que that the following part would be a refutation of your critics:-)

(I still hold out hope that while being firm with your strongly held convictions, you present your arguments in such a way that are persuasive to general readers that don't have the experience and background with the issues involving gravitational theory.)

Anaconda said...

When you think about it, it's not surprising that "modern" astronomers would rally around a theory that lets them project all kinds of fantasies onto the firmament, the heavens, after all, down through the ages Man has projected his "gods" and how they look and act onto the night sky.

This might also explain why "modern" astronomy's grip and defense of their belief system is so ruthless and intolerant.

In a sense, their minds-eye depiction of the heavens is their "god" or "gods" and they cling to it as fiercely as would any religious believer upon having their faith directly challenged.

Perhaps, I am being too harsh with my critique and analysis, but the reaction does fit the parallel.

Quantum_Flux said...

The aspect of the universal curvature of spacetime can't be falsified (but it still can be verified if light, photons traveling in parallel is shown to travel in a hyperbole or ellipsoidal arc instead of perfectly straight through long distances).

The aspect of gravitation and acceleration bending light or changing the rates of the atomic clock, as far as I know, are actually verifiable by the bending of light around the sun during a solar eclipse (unless you want to say that the light travels through a medium with a refractive index of greater than 1 thereby acting as a convergent lense which I think is also perhaps likely to occur given the sun's atmosphere probably extends far out into space) and measurements of time differences in synchronized clocks, one on the space station compared with the other on Earth.