mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== VOL VII, No 1 Feb 28, 2003 EDITOR: Amy Acheson PUBLISHER: Michael Armstrong LIST MANAGER: Brian Stewart CONTENTS BEYOND DARK AND EMPTY . . . . . . . . . . . Mel Acheson DEFINING SCIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jason Goodman SUNSPOT MYSTERIES . . . . . . . .. . . . . Wal Thornhill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< BEYOND DARK AND EMPTY By Mel Acheson Before the space age, astronomers looked up at the night sky and saw points and patches of light. With the aid of telescopes they could see more points and patches, and with the aid of spectroscopes they could discover what the points and patches were made of and how they moved. But the points and patches were few and far away. The universe appeared dark and empty. Astronomers assumed that if they detected nothing, nothing was there. They conceived theories to explain how those points of light could be lumps of familiar solids, liquids, and gasses that persisted and moved in the darkness and emptiness. The theory of gravity explained how a cloud of hydrogen could squeeze itself together and heat up. The atomic theory explained how that hot hydrogen could start nuclear reactions and produce more heat. The kinetic theory of gasses explained how the pressure from the heat could balance the pressure from the gravity to create a star. The explanations fit together precisely into a theory of stellar evolution that described everything (or almost everything) seen in the dark and empty universe. Then the space age extended our sense of sight to include the entire electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves to gamma rays. It extended our sense of touch to the planets and asteroids and comets, even to the Sun. We stuck the fingers of our probes into the dark and empty spaces. Our sensory sampling of the universe was liberated from the limitations of our biological niche on the surface of a wet and rocky planet. We could sniff the solar wind, taste the rocks on Mars, and see the x-rays from the comets. We discovered the universe is bursting with plasma, a state of matter almost unknown to our previous geocentric and anthropocentric condition. Plasma is often mistaken for a hot gas, but it doesn't behave as familiar gasses do. Instead of merely expanding when heated, it pinches into filaments and cells and jets and donuts. It generates magnetic fields and microwave noise and x-ray bursts. It accelerates particles to relativistic velocities and polarizes radiation. It conducts electric currents and transmits power across large distances. It gathers matter from the surrounding space and separates it into shells of like composition. Now the universe appears bright and full. Jupiter's magnetosphere, shining in radio frequencies, looks twice the size of the sun or moon. Saturn's magnetosphere appears a quarter the size of the sun. Venus looks like a monstrous comet whose tail sweeps by us every time it passes between Earth and Sun. Mars sparkles with x-rays. The Veil Nebula stretches six times the width of the full moon. It's glowing filaments corkscrew around each other to form a celestial caduceus. The Rosette Nebula covers six times the area of the full moon. Flaming tridents thrust out of incandescent undulations that wrap themselves into an interstellar Ouroborous. The telescopic dot of a galaxy we call M49 is the invisible center of a cloud of radio emission connecting thousands of galaxies and filling a quarter of the sky. The cloud swirls into the north throwing out knots of x- ray brilliance like astronomical fireworks. The cloud also swirls into the southern sky, where another spray of brilliance erupts. On the other side of the sky swirls a similar cloud. Even the spaces between these glowing plasma cells are filled with the electromagnetic fields of Birkeland "transmission lines." We have stumbled into this bright and full universe with minds still adapted to dark and empty theories. We squint our imaginations and shade our thoughts with dogma. We try to adapt our dark and empty theories to these new sensory experiences. The assumption that detecting nothing means nothing is there is the assumption of a man standing in a dark room: But when he moves, he detects the furniture with his shins. Space probes are the shins of astronomy: They have moved away from the Earth and away from biological senses. They have detected the electrical furniture in space by getting blasted with unexpected radiation and shocked with unforeseen currents. Moving vicariously through the dark spaces with technologically enhanced senses, astronomers who can't see the light can feel the heat. Space is not the only domain of experience that has appeared dark and empty. Ancient history, myths, art, and rituals contain much that is obscure. They describe fantastical objects. They depict images devoid of mundane designations. They seem to have little coherent relation to the world of our geocentric and anthropocentric senses. Many modern social structures and behaviors appear irrational and senseless as well. Wars and oppressions trace their motivations into the shadows of the past. Institutions perpetuate arbitrary yet orderly traditions. The shins of astronomy have also stumbled into the furniture in this social room. The patterns of human expression now appear to emanate from an archaic spectacle of plasma discharges not seen again until space probes detected them in other stars and plasma physicists reproduced them in laboratories. Our history looks back to an origin in a primordial experience of celestial plasma on Earth. That experience was both traumatic and galvanic. It brought us both scotoma and lucidity, depravity and nobility. It may have been the genesis of consciousness. We have been obsessed to memorialize it in art and rituals and institutions. We have been compelled to repress it and to deny it but also to imitate it in battles and genocides. But we have also transformed it. Artistic imagination turned that experience of suprahuman events into human expression and meaningfulness. Scientific curiosity turned it into understandings of the nature of things, which empowered development of technologies. Economic inventiveness turned it into the production of wealth through trade and the division of labor. Political conation turned it into diplomacy, social organization, and statesmanship. Religious meditation turned it into spiritual enlightenment. The space age brings us a vision not only of a cosmos bright with new senses and full of new phenomena but also a history bright with new sensibilities and full of new self-identity. Our ancestors, and therefore we, are neither the victims of dark ignorance nor the dupes of empty superstition but the creators of a developing lucidity and meaningfulness. We are not merely survivors, but heirs. Our opportunity and our responsibility is to invest the profits of the inherited dark and empty theories in new bright and full ventures. Mel Acheson thoth at whidbey.com www.dragonscience.com ******************************************************** DEFINING SCIENCE Jason Goodman SCIENCE, PSEUDOSCIENCE, CRACKPOTS AND SKEPTICISM: WHAT ARE THEY? INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE This will serve as an introduction to what the various concepts in the title are. In the scientific community, these terms are quite often thrown around in a manner that reeks of subjectivity. It is, then, my intent here to present to you these things in an objective manner. A logical analysis of these terms--their common usages, their actual meaning, etc.--will be given, culminating with concrete definitions that (hopefully) can never be used in a subjective manner. I will be drawing lots of material from a natural science lecture. (Note: The page with the lecture is now defunct, but still cached in the Google search engine. Just type "natural sciences tier" and it should come up). -------------------------------------------------------- WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science has long been an activity that has been under more scrutiny than almost any other in history. While there have been various religious (e.g., persecution of supporters of Copernicus by the medieval church), philosophical (e.g., postmodernists and others who consider science as just another arbitrary social construct), and social (scientific illiteracy and suspicion of science by the public) objections to the scientific enterprise, there are still other dangers to science. A noticeable portion of modern mainstream science, primarily in the fields of cosmology and fundamental physics, is a potential danger to its own community--possibly just as much so as groups like those mentioned above. Many alternative (read: non-mainstream) theories have been labeled as "unscientific" and their proponents called "crackpots." While a handful of theories and their advocates have been appropriately labeled as such, many others have been wrongly labeled. This probably is the result of many scientists in the astronomy and physics community either having a highly subjective definition of "science" or still not having a full grasp of what science is. It is thus imperative that we construct a foolproof definition of science. Here are a few great examples of usages of the word "science" to see how it relates to the nature of science and/or what science is: "...the goal of science is to seek naturalistic explanations for phenomena... within the framework of natural laws and principles and the operational rule of testability." - The National Academy of Sciences "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." - from the original draft of the Kansas State Science Education Standards that was written by a 27 member committee of scientists and educators "The systematic pursuit of useful, reliable, quantitative knowledge through the scientific method." -- quoted from the above mentioned natural sciences lecture "The study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment." - from Encarta Dictionary The second to last usage of the word "science" mentions the scientific method. Don Scott gives an excellent overview of the method on the "Introduction" page on his website. [ed note -- see it here: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/introduction.htm ] What can we determine from the above definitions? Simple. Science can be simply defined as "the practice of seeking naturalistic explanations for the world around us through the scientific method, which is a systematic search for useful generalizations about nature." It is a simple definition. It works. So, a scientist can be defined as "Any person who engages in the practice of science." Mainstreamers often complain about non-specialists try to "invade" another field (like plasma physicists and electrical engineers developing a cosmological theory), as well as basically saying that amateurs (especially those who don't have advanced degrees in a field) have no business "siding" with alternative theories as they "wouldn't know what they were talking about," or other similar comments. Despite the complaints, "Scientists may be professional or amateur; so long as they adhere to the scientific method, they are scientists. It's not a matter of university degrees; It's a question of method." However, these definitions of "science" and "scientist" are still disregarded by large parts of mainstream science. Most alternative theories are still constantly referred to as "pseudoscience." Well, let us examine that term then, shall we? WHAT IS PSEUDOSCIENCE? This is a term that is thrown around a lot. Usually, it is used to connote any theory that does not fit with mainstream science. However, this definition is hopelessly flawed and does nothing more than promote bias towards or against particular theories. It is then necessary to construct a foolproof definition of the term "pseudoscience." This is somewhat more difficult to define than science is, though. We should break down the word into its two word roots. The second word root is "science." We have already gone over this, of course. So let's proceed to the other word root, which is the prefix "pseudo-". This prefix is used to denote things that are either false (e.g. a "pseudonym" is a false name) or appear to be similar to something but isn't (e.g. a cellular "pseudopod" appears to be a foot of sorts, but isn't actually a foot). "Pseudoscience" is then easy to define. It can be defined as "Something that pretends to be science but is not subject to testing (and falsification) by the scientific method...," to once again quote the above mentioned natural sciences lecture. It is, quite simply, something that isn't science. It is something that is not empirical; that is, it is unanswerable to data. That says some things about quite a few ideas in mainstream cosmology and physics (things like "multiverse theories" come to mind). WHAT IS A CRACKPOT? This is another frequently heard term. It is almost always used to label proponents of non-mainstream theories. A crackpot is defined as "somebody who is regarded as having unconventional or wild ideas (informal insult)," to quote the entry in the Encarta Dictionary. Roget's thesaurus has the following entry: "A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy: crazy, eccentric, lunatic. Informal : crank, loon, loony. Slang : cuckoo, ding-a-ling, dingbat, kook, nut, screwball, weirdie, weirdo." This is, of course, an entirely subjective term. The term "crackpot" is nothing more than an insult, used to denigrate those whose theories they disagree with. Is Halton Arp "crazy"? Was Hannes Alfv=C3=83=C2=A9n "eccentric"? Was Ralph Juergens a "lunatic"? Are the proponents of plasma cosmology, catastrophism, or non-expanding universe models nothing but a bunch of "cranky loons"? It all depends on who you ask. A long time ago, scientists like Alexander Graham Bell, Nikola Tesla, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Wegener and many others were considered crackpots. Yet they were eventually vindicated. Of course, not all of their ideas were perfect, but these people all made important contributions to science. Conversely, many mainstream scientists of the past like Kelvin, Chapman, and especially Ptolemy, turned out to be wrong. Saying "You are a crackpot" is no different than saying "You are a bad artist." It is a subjective term that doesn't need to be used by responsible scientists. If anything, the term "crackpot" would best be reserved for scientists whose personalities and/or practices resemble those of fictional characters such as Frankenstein, Moreau, or anyone else that psychologists would consider insane. WHAT ARE SKEPTICS AND SKEPTICISM? Michael Shermer, Martin Gardner, and many other advocates of mainstream science refer to themselves as "skeptics." They usually refer to a "skeptic" as a person who doubts "crackpot pseudoscientists." Well, let's take a look at this word. "Skeptic," which comes from the Greek skeptikos (skeptikos), means "somebody who questions the validity or truth of things that most people accept." Skepticism is "an attitude marked by a tendency to doubt what others accept to be true." We learn something immediately from this. A skeptic is, quite simply, somebody who doubts what others accept to be true. Shermer, et al., are skeptics because they doubt the conclusions of alternative science. Arp, Thornhill, Scott, the Achesons, and myself, among others, are skeptics as well. We doubt what the mainstream cosmological and physics community accept to be true (e.g., the BBT, Standard Model, relativity, etc.). In fact, since everybody on Earth will doubt what some other person holds to be true, every single individual is, by definition, a skeptic. That leaves very little special meaning left for the term "skeptic" for mainstream supporters like Shermer. Personally, I think that Shermer has the right idea, and I respect many of his general outlines, but, like many other mainstreamers, he just goes about it the wrong way. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? Science is a realm of inquiry devoted to explaining the natural world through naturalistic means. "Pseudoscience" can be reduced to a term that can be used to describe things that aren't science but pretend to be. What can we draw from this? Things that employ the scientific method can be called "science", while things that employ unscientific methods while trying to appear as science can be called "pseudoscience." Simple as that. Pseudosciences are, in essence, theories and fields that employ such things as supernatural or paranormal causation. Supernatural forces are by definition beyond the realm of nature, and thus beyond the realm of science. Therefore, something that is reliant on supernatural causation cannot be science. To quote philosopher of science Arthur Strahler: "Supernatural forces, if they exist, cannot be observed, measured, or recorded by the procedures of science - that's simply what the word "supernatural" means. There can be no limit to the kinds and shapes of supernatural forces and forms the human mind is capable of conjuring up from "nowhere." Scientists therefore have no alternative but to ignore "claims" of the existence of supernatural forces and causes. This exclusion is a basic position that must be stoutly adhered to by scientists or their entire system of processing information will collapse. To put it another way, if science must include a supernatural realm, it will be forced into a game where there are no rules. Without rules, no scientific observation, explanation, or prediction can enjoy a high probability of being a correct picture of the real world." Pseudosciences are, in actuality, not quite as common as the mainstream lets on. However, such pseudosciences can be rather prominent. A great example of a pseudoscience is astrology, which claims that the position of the planets and stars at the time of a person's birth tells them their fortunes. The BBT, Standard Model, fusion star theory, and most other mainstream theories--problematic, false, correct, or whatever they may be in someone's particular professional opinion--are scientific, actually, because they rely on naturalistic explanations. But so are plasma cosmology, non-expanding universe scenarios, electrical catastrophism, and a plethora of other non-mainstream theories. Granted, many alternative theories have problems or are, for all intents and purposes, doubtful or just not good enough, but many are also right. It doesn't change the fact that, if they fit the description of science as has been outlined, then they are scientific. It is, then, a matter of which theory is simpler (as per Occam's Razor) and which fits the observations better. As far as subjective terms or special titles like "crackpot" or "skeptic" go, we can all do without them, especially those of us in the scientific community. It will not suffice to force everything into--or disregard it if it can't fit with--, preexisting theory, either. A real scientific debate between the various theories cannot ensue within the current system. That inspires more conflict than debate. Science has enough dangerous enemies without such friction. We need an atmosphere more tolerant of alternative science. I think this is the best general advice for people who value scientific research and the scientific method. Jason Goodman ******************************************************** SUNSPOT MYSTERIES Wal Thornhill "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." - Rene Descartes -------------------------------------------------------- The following report appeared in SPACE.com NEW PHOTOS AF THE SUN ARE MOST DETAILED EVER By Robert Roy Britt Senior Science Writer 13 November 2002 The most detailed pictures ever taken of the Sun reveal the insides of striking snake-like filaments that reach from bright portions of the solar surface into the dark hearts of sunspots. The images promise astronomers a new way to reach deep into these magnetic beasts and extract their operational secrets. Made with a specially equipped ground-based telescope, the photographs reveal features never before seen on the solar surface. The images themselves, and more important the technique used to make them, promise a fuller understanding of the complex and poorly understood interplay of matter and energy that roil the hot surface, all driven by the thermonuclear reactions at the Sun's core. --------------------------------------------------------- Thornhill Comments: Expressions of surprise and puzzlement are commonplace at new discoveries in astrophysics and the detailed sunspot photos provide their share. It is because accepted theories have proven to be spectacularly non-predictive. It is a clear signal for independent minds that an opportunity exists to clear up mysteries that have dogged our finest scientists for most of the 20th century. As Fred Hoyle long ago pointed out; the Sun does not conform to the expected behavior of an internally heated ball of gas, simply radiating its energy into space. Instead, its behavior at every level is complex and baffling. Nowhere is it more mysterious than in a sunspot. So, without any direct evidence that the thermonuclear powered model of the Sun is correct, and with strong evidence against it, we should begin by heeding Descartes advice and doubt it. Unfortunately it is a difficult path to take because science is a powerfully consensual organization. Yet it is consensus, or general agreement, that can delay new ideas for centuries and sometimes, millennia. [Ed note =C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=80=9C Wal Thornhill's full article along with s= olar images can be found here: http://www.holoscience.com/news/sunspot_mysteries.html ] Researchers at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm, led by Goran Scharmer, discuss the images in the Nov. 14 issue of the journal Nature Team member Dan Kiselman told what he sees in the new views of the Sun: "A dark-cored filament looks like a glowing snake with a dark stripe painted along its back," Kiselman said. "The 'head' of the snake is often a complicated feature where the stripe splits up among many bright points." The pictures were taken with academy's recently installed solar telescope at La Palma, in the Canary Islands off the coast of Africa. Movies made by putting sequential images together show that that the dark cores of the filaments are long-lived and possibly more stable than the brighter portions. The scientists also identified canal-like structures in the so-called penumbra of sunspots that "could also be described as a pattern of cracks," Kiselman said. The penumbra straddles a sunspots dark core and brighter regions elsewhere on the solar surface. "Whatever metaphors we use for these features, one should remember that everything is just glowing gas." The photos were taken on July 15 and were colorized to highlight details. MYSTERIES REMAIN Despite the detail =C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=80=9C the photos resolve things down = to 62 miles (100 kilometers) -- researchers still don't know the details of how sunspots work. "It is clear that everything we see is the result of fields and the solar gas, or plasma," Kiselman explained. "The heat of the Sun tries to push through, carried by convection currents which are hindered by the magnetic fields. But exactly what happens and why these kind of structures are formed, we don't know." Sunspots are cooler and darker than the rest of the Sun. They are launch pads for complex expulsions of plasma that race through the solar system, sometimes fueling the colorful lights near Earth1s poles known as aurora. --------------------------------------------------------- Thornhill Comments: Is it likely that the poor understanding of sunspot phenomena arises from the incorrect assumption that we know most of what goes on inside the Sun? I think so. To have any confidence in our understanding of the Sun, and stars in general, we must first be able to explain simply the things we can see. Therefore it is crucially important to understand a sunspot because it is the only place on the Sun that gives a glimpse below the bright photosphere. And what do we see? It is cooler down there by thousands of degrees! That is not expected at all if the Sun is trying to rid itself of heat. The sunspot center should be much hotter and brighter than its surroundings. And what of the penumbral filaments? They and their behavior bear no resemblance to any known form of convection in a hot gas, magnetic fields or no. There are many crippling agreements that hold up progress in astrophysics. One was succinctly expressed at a recent public meeting by a professor of astrophysics who admitted, "When we don't understand something we blame it on magnetism." The Sun has had more features blamed on magnetism than any other celestial object. The cool sunspot center is a classic example. Certainly, strong magnetic fields are measured there but that raises questions of cause and effect. Magnetic fields are only produced by electric currents. Is there any other evidence of electrical activity on the Sun? Yes, practically every feature of the Sun can be understood in terms of electric discharge activity in plasma. The penumbral filaments are a case in point. Electric discharges in plasma take the form of long thin filaments. Just like a neon tube, it is simply the discharge that causes the gases to glow. The penumbral filaments were observed to split near their "footprints" in the dark umbra and to move around. It is typical behavior of plasma filaments and can be observed in novelty plasma balls. But the greatest shock is that the penumbral filaments have dark cores! How could this be so if they are convecting gas? In that case, the filament center should be hottest and brightest. An electric discharge offers a simple explanation. In an electric universe all bodies may receive electric current from the environment in a cosmic charging process associated with the normal development of a galaxy. And because electrical phenomena are scalable over at least 14 orders of magnitude, we may look to electric discharge phenomena in other atmospheres to gain insights into what may be happening in the Sun's atmosphere. There is a temptation to simply equate the penumbral filaments with gargantuan lightning bolts, but the features do not match all that well. A typical lightning flash lasts for 0.2 seconds and covers a distance of about 10 km. The penumbral filaments last for at least one hour and are of the order of 1000 km long. If we could scale a lightning bolt 100 times we might have a flash that lasted between 20 and 200 seconds and was 1000 km long. The lifetime is too short. Also, measurements of scars on lightning conductors show that the lightning channel is only about 5 mm wide. Scaling that by 100 times would have solar lightning channels far below the limit of telescopic resolution. However, there is another familiar form of atmospheric electric discharge that does scale appropriately and could explain the mysterious dark cores of penumbral filaments. It is the tornado! Tornadoes, like the one pictured here, last for minutes and can have a diameter of the order of one kilometre. Scale those figures up 100 times and we match penumbral filaments very well. And if the circulating cylinder of plasma is radiating heat and light, as we see on the Sun, then the solar "tornado" will appear, side on, to have a dark core. Meteorologists are not sure how tornadoes form but they do know that they are often associated with severe electrical storms. The key to understanding tornadoes is that they are the result of rapidly rotating electric charge. Just as electrons are the current carriers in the copper wires we use for power transmission, so they are in the tornado. The BIG difference is that the electrons are moving at many metres per second in the tornado while they take several hours to move one metre in copper wire! The result is that enormously powerful electromagnetic forces are in control of the tornado. The result has been called a "charged sheath vortex." [ed note: Thornhill1s website references the tornado theories of Peter Thompson.] Public science displays give the wrong impression when they equate a simple mechanical fluid vortex like this one with a tornado. A tornado is an electrical phenomenon subject to far more powerful forces created by swiftly rotating charge. If this were a true miniature tornado the young lad would be advised to not go anywhere near it. The possible damage caused by electromagnetic forces is far greater than that of a simple wind. The shape of the vortex is strongly constrained to be long and thin with a circular cross-section. This true shape of the vortex is usually hidden in tornadoes because of the obscuring dust and clouds. The vortex itself will only be visible if it has sufficient electrical energy to ionise atoms in the atmosphere. That is clearly the case on the Sun. And some people who have survived the experience of being "run over" by a tornado have reported an electrical glow in the inner wall of the tornado. It is commonly thought that a tornado is a means for mechanical energy in the storm to be converted somehow to electrical power, which is then transmitted very effectively to ground by the electrical conduit of the charged sheath vortex inside the tornado. The "somehow" arises only because no-one visualizes the electrical dimension of the solar system. Electrical power from space is partially dissipated in the mechanical energy of the encircling winds. Instead of generating the electrical effects, the tornadic winds are driven by the charge sheath vortex. The Earth and other planets receive electrical power from space in the same way as the Sun. Obviously, we receive far less than does the Sun, which seems to be covered with tornadic charge sheath vortexes. The solar tornadoes are seen most clearly at the edge of sunspots in the form of penumbral filaments. The strong solenoidal magnetic field created by each vortex gives rise to the observed filamentary magnetic field in the penumbra. The Martian dust devils, too, are tornadoes that dwarf their earthly counterpart. Clouds are not required to generate them. They are an atmospheric electric discharge phenomenon. WHY IS THE SUN COVERED IN BRIGHT "GRANULES"? In his seminal papers of the 1970's on the Electric Sun, Ralph Juergens noted the possible identity of solar granules with something that the pioneering plasma physicist, Irving Langmuir, termed "anode tufts." Anode tufts are small, bright, secondary plasmas that form above an anode that is otherwise too small to handle the current flow into it. In his experiments, Langmuir reported the tufts as small bright spheres moving above the anode surface. It seems possible that in the stratified atmosphere of the Sun those bright discharges rather take the distinct form of the charge sheath vortex. The granules are bright because the gases inside the charge sheath vortex have been heated by compression and radiation from the walls of the vortex. Those hot gases fountain out of the tops of the vortexes to form the granules. Also, lightning in some form will deliver power to the top of the granule, creating unresolved bright spots. Above the granules the ions recombine with electrons to form neutral gas, which absorbs light. The gas would be constrained to flow down between the granules, its motion modified by collisions with ions moving under electromagnetic influences. This may create the dark "canals", which have the branched pattern of electric discharges. There would be a powerful influence from the strong electric fields of the plasma sheaths (double-layers) of the anode tufts. Varying levels of lightning activity above each granule could explain the observed variation in brightness of solar granules. It is noteworthy that large faint granules have never been seen. They would not be expected on this model. WHAT CAUSES A SUNSPOT? In the electrical model, the Sun receives electrical energy from interstellar space in the form of a glow discharge. Plasma experiments show that some energy will be stored in a donut shaped "plasmoid" above the Sun's equator. The solar plasmoid (Seen here from above the pole) has been imaged in ultra-violet light using data from the SOHO spacecraft). The energy is released sporadically from the plasmoid to the mid-latitudes of the Sun. (Incidentally, plasmoid resonances may give rise to simultaneous flares on opposite sides of the central body, as recently reported on the Sun). The global tornado storm is pushed aside by more powerful charge sheath vortexes that deliver electrical energy from the plasmoid to much lower levels. The resulting holes in the tornado level, or photosphere, are what we call sunspots. Rather than being a site where energy flow has been restricted, a sunspot is a site where it is enhanced. That explains why "they are launch pads for complex expulsions of plasma that race through the solar system." The giant electrical tornadoes that form sunspots accelerate particles in their powerful electromagnetic fields, generating UV light and x-rays instead of visible light. However, because temperature is a measure of random motion, the field-directed motion of the particles within the sunspot vortex appears "cool." This model can explain why sunspots of the same magnetic polarity are strangely attracted toward each other instead of being repelled. (Try pushing together two similar poles of two magnets). The sunspots are receiving electric current flowing in parallel rotating streams, which results in their being mutually attracted over long distances and repelled at short distances. That, in turn, explains why sunspots often seem to maintain their identity even if they come close enough to merge. There is also other evidence that suggests the presence of electric currents aligned with the magnetic field in a sunspot. Granulation has been observed in the umbra, or dark centers of sunspots, by overexposing sunspot images. The umbral granules are more closely packed than photospheric granules. That is to be expected on this model because the current in the large charge sheath vortex forming the sunspot is being delivered to denser atmosphere at lower depths. Umbral granules should not be there if sunspots are formed by magnetic throttling of the convection process. . The Nature article also mentions "fainter structures in the umbraS These features are associated with the inward migration of a bright dot followed by repeated brightening and fading on a timescale of minutes. This suggests that a larger fraction of umbrae than observed so far could have faint or small-scale filamentary structure." The nature of a charge sheath vortex is to tend to compress material inside and lengthen the tube in both directions. Since it is also acting as a conduit for electrical energy, it seems that the moving bright dots are small-scale filamentary lightning emanating from the lower ends of the penumbral filament vortex. --------------------------------------------------------- One might expect astronomers to have a firm grasp of the mechanics of our own Sun, it being by far the closest star around. "Compared to other stars, one may say that it is true," Kiselman said. "But the amazing zoo of structures and dynamic phenomena on the Sun are not well understood in general, though they have been observed for a very long time." So imagine how little is really known about other stars. "We will never understand any other star better than the Sun," he said. --------------------------------------------------------- Thornhill Comments: This is a remarkably candid admission from an expert. If only the true state of our ignorance were more widely publicized instead of the hubristic pronouncements that we practically know everything, then we might find curiosity about science rekindled in our schools. It is a fact that we do not understand the Sun. So we do not understand stars in general. Yes, we have complicated stories about them that have kept theoreticians happily engaged for centuries. But for so long as they convince themselves that they can ignore the electrical nature of all things in the universe their stories will be fiction. The electric force is the most powerful force in the universe, from which all other forces are derived, and it operates at all levels, from the subatomic to the galactic. When we understand the true electrical nature of our own star we will begin to understand the universe as it really is. =C3=82=C2=A9 Wal Thornhill 2002 author of The Electric Universe: A Holistic Science for the New Millennium See www.electric-universe.org ******************************************************** PLEASE VISIT THE KRONIA GROUP WEBSITE: http://www.kronia.com Subscriptions to AEON, a journal of myth and science, now with regular features on the Saturn theory and electric universe, may be ordered from this page: http://www.kronia.com/library/aeon.html Other suggested Web site URL's for more information about Catastrophics: http://www.aeonjournal.com/index.html http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/ http://www.flash.net/~cjransom/ http://www.knowledge.co.uk/velikovskian/ http://www.bearfabrique.org http://www.grazian-archive.com/ http://www.holoscience.com http://www.electric-cosmos.org/ http://www.electric-universe.org http://www.science-frontiers.com http://www.catastrophism.com/cdrom/index.htm http://www.dragonscience.com ----------------------------------------------- The THOTH electronic newsletter is an outgrowth of scientific and scholarly discussions in the emerging field of astral catastrophics. Our focus is on a reconstruction of ancient astral myths and symbols in relation to a new theory of planetary history. Serious readers must allow some time for these radically different ideas to be fleshed out and for the relevant background to be developed. The general tenor of the ideas and information presented in THOTH is supported by the editor and publisher, but there will always be plenty of room for differences of interpretation. We welcome your comments and responses. thoth at Whidbey.com New readers are referred to earlier issues of THOTH posted on the Kronia website listed above.