Friday, January 15, 2010


Steve Smith: Betelgeuse.

Betelgeuse is notable for gigantic "bubbles of hot gas" that are in constant motion—bubbles as large as the star itself. Since it has been observed to eject massive amounts of stellar material, greater than six-times its diameter, it has been proposed that Betelgeuse is undergoing violent vertical oscillations just beneath its surface. It is that energetic motion that is causing the "hot gas" to blast into space, just as bubbles in boiling water erupt with puffs of steam.

The Electric Star theory provides another explanation. An explanation that relies on the electrical connection stars have with their galactic neighborhood, and with the Universe. Stars shine because electricity flows through each galaxy. As has been written in these pages many times, stars can be thought of as giant spheres of slow-motion lightning. It is this simple hypothesis that best matches observational evidence.

Retired Professor of Electrical Engineering Don Scott wrote in his acclaimed book The Electric Sky that a star's size, luminosity, and color have little to do with its age. Stars fall into position on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram because of the input they receive from galactic electrical circuits. As Dr. Scott wrote, the primary indicator for a star's behavior is the current density at its surface. Stars do not rely on internally generated fusion fires to supply them with energy.

Red giant stars are relatively cool but extremely bright, so they are interpreted to be quite large. Scott proposes that the "giant" characteristic is a result of an exceptionally broad corona and not because the stellar disc is oversized. The star might be small inside its extended, energetic atmosphere. The fact that Betelgeuse has a temperature measurement of about 2900 Celsius calls into question the thermonuclear model of stars. How can such cool temperatures create a radiative output that is so extreme?

Physicist and Electric Universe advocate Wal Thornhill also proposes an electrical model for Betelgeuse, and red supergiant stars, in general. Electric currents in space are primarily due to the flow of electrons through interstellar plasma, and not the movement of positive ions. This means that stars are lacking in electrons because of a charge separation process. Stars can be considered "positive anodes in a galactic glow discharge." Therefore:

“Red stars are those stars that cannot satisfy their hunger for electrons from the surrounding plasma. So the star expands the surface area over which it collects electrons by growing a large plasma sheath that becomes the effective collecting area of the stellar anode in space. The growth process is self-limiting because, as the sheath expands, its electric field will grow stronger. Electrons caught up in the field are accelerated to ever-greater energies. Before long, they become energetic enough to excite neutral particles they chance to collide with, and the huge sheath takes on a uniform ‘red anode glow.’ It becomes a red giant star."

Betelgeuse is an electric star, and the bright regions are areas where electric currents are flowing with the greatest Amperage.


KV said...


Running back to papa? the thunderbolt site!

Here is much more informative writeup on Betelgeuse

With that, you would not have to put up with BS like:
Red stars are those stars that cannot satisfy their hunger for electrons from the surrounding plasma.

How would Euclid explain this? You may have to go in seance(?) to get in touch with him.

Jeffery Keown said...

I can articulate the Electric Universe perspective with a tale of my own wanderings.

Today, I saw Heather Locklear. She was on Ohio street in Indianapolis.


She was at the Sheraton Hotel. I was at the bus stop outside of the SBC offices (I get my car out of the shop tomorrow), and I know it was her. She was the right height, blonde, the same terrific figure that she has.

I didn't see her up close, or check for ID, or ...honestly... even see her face...

But I know it was her. I just know it by looking at the blonde across the street. I know... no investigation, just visual contact with her ass, but I am convinced I am right.

I saw Heather Locklear. You might claim that I saw some other hot blonde in a parka (its cold in Indy this time of year), but my explanation fits better than yours. I saw her on Scrubs once... or maybe it was a two-parter...

KV said...

I repost my response to Anaconda’s suggestion (given below) to keep the dialog ongoing:


I have known of Dr. Peratt and his work for some time. I believe I may have seen this paper before, but thanks for a pdf link. Here are my first impressions:

It does not state that there is no gravity (like OIM does), nor does it say that gravitational forces do not play...

It does make a case for accounting electromagnetic forces and their role in forming various aspects of our Universe. DOE funded this research shows that most sci/eng folks are not closed minded...

Specifically, take a look at the plasma ball pic on page 55. There is a source (inner ball) and there is a sink (outer glass surface) to support the filaments in the vacuum, and there is an external circuit powering the contraption. What you don't see here is that if I were to touch the outer glass surface, I direct filaments to the touched area. The issue is not the physics of the filament direction, but non-closeness of the plasma system, or it can be interfered with from outside... The Universe, by its very conceptualization, is unique without any external meddling (no god's finger touching the glass ball!), hence, it is not a plasma universe.

Plasma as a forth state of the matter is disingenuous at best, as there are charged solids and liquids and we as life would not be possible without them.

It is easy to write down charge and current force equation if you do not have to justify the inert material needed to support these charges and currents… Electrical engineers do this all the time, go ask a guy who has to design the mechanics of a drill motor! And, when there is a failure, it is always mechanical! I believe Peratt is an excellent electrical engineer.


Read this paper:

Advances in numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas

Part II. Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale

United States Department of Energy, Washington, DC, U.S.A.; Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, U.S.A.

Scientific paper

Professional qualifications of Dr. Anthony L. Peratt.

Please feel free to ask questions or pose objections.

KV said...

A general question: What causes the streaks (flow paths) in the plasma ball Peratt wrote in his paper?

There must be matter-antimatter dipole sheets in that little glass ball, true?

KV said...

If there is anti-matter in that darn glass ball, how did it get there? Why don't we figure out how to harvest it?

It looks like it just somehow gets in there when the plasma ball is built, like the psi energy in the pyramids.

With antimatter, I would not care about oil or any fossils, and we should be thinking about how to build a warp drive so that we can go visit the wimps and have bug-eyed fair maidens to play with...

Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

S Smith is a very good writer, but I disagree that the lightning is in slow motion! It is every bit as fast as elsewhere and we see it from such a distance that we may say it moves across our field of vision slowly, but not that it is in slomo because it is in a star. It also flows across galactioc arms, but at the distances, we cannot see it move at all.

Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

I don't think that anti-matter exists as such. Paul Dirac noticed the math and said that such a particle should exist and lo it was found. What if the proton is a neutron wedded to a positron? This is reasonable as we know that it does decay that way to lose the charge?
We are then surrounded by "anti-matter" we do not need to call it that it is just the perfect demo of E=mc2 ie as both charges annihilate one another leaving just energy. No anti-matter at all .....

If there were ant-matter, then an electron and an anti-electron would do the same. We have never found nor will we, an anti-proton!