Speaker 1: What if everything you thought you knew about the fundamental forces,
the ones holding our universe together? What if that was
incomplete or even I mean, dare I say it wrong?
Speaker 2: That's a big thought to start with.
Speaker 1: It is imagine a cosmos not really sculpted by gravity primarily,
but by something else entirely, a different, really powerful force,
something binding galaxies, igniting stars in ways we will barely
even considered.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm intrigued.
Speaker 1: Where are we going with this today? We're doing a
truly mind bending deep dive into an alternative theory of
the cosmos, a vision of the universe as this vast
interconnected electrical circuit.
Speaker 2: An electrical circuit. Wow.
Speaker 1: Yeah, We're going to explore this radical idea, drawing from
a whole collection of research, historical accounts, some pretty cutting
edge science experiments, and even ancient myths that seem to
like echo these huge cosmic events.
Speaker 2: Myths and science together.
Speaker 1: Our mission, as always, is to pull out the most
important bits of knowledge. The surprising insights from all these
sources give you that shortcut to being really well informed
without you know, feeling toribally overwhelmed.
Speaker 2: Sounds good. A shortcut through a potentially radical idea.
Speaker 1: Exactly, So get ready for a journey that might just
rewire your whole understanding of reality.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, before we dive into the rewiring part, and
maybe it's helpful to quickly set the stage. You know,
what's the current accepted picture from mainstream.
Speaker 1: Science, good idea, lay the groundwork right.
Speaker 2: So, our standard cosmological theory, the one you learn in school,
tells us the universe kicked off with the Big Bang,
this like unimaginable burst of energy setting everything in motion.
Speaker 1: The Big Bank got it.
Speaker 2: Then, for the first maybe four hundred thousand years or so,
the universe was mostly just this hot, vast, pretty uniform soup,
mainly hydrogen and helium, with photons bouncing all over the place.
A simpler time, a much simpler, hotter time. Then, according
to this standard theory, gravity starts to take It's seen
as this invisible, pervasive hand pulling stuff together.
Speaker 1: The great sculptor.
Speaker 2: That's the idea. Gravity pulls these clouds of hydrogen and
helium together slowly, slowly, making them denser. Over vast amounts
of time, these bundles get compressed under their own weight,
heat up like crazy.
Speaker 1: Until bang stars ignite exactly they.
Speaker 2: Hit critical temperatures, critical pressures, and boom, fusion starts. The
first stars are born. Then gravity keeps working, pulling those
stars into these massive collections we call galaxies.
Speaker 1: And galaxies into clusters, you.
Speaker 2: Got it, galaxies into clusters, making these even bigger cosmic structures.
And all the while stars live, they die, they explode
in supernovas, creating heavier elements.
Speaker 1: Right, the stuff planets are made of, like us.
Speaker 2: Precisely, gravity steps in again, clumps those heavier elements together,
forms planets, and they settle into orbits around their stars.
It's this whole gravitational cascade that supposedly leads to everything
we see.
Speaker 1: It's a neat picture, very elegant, it is.
Speaker 2: And the modern understanding of this gravity, the one that
underpins well pretty much all of modern astrophysics, that came
from Albert Einstein his Theories of General and Special Relativity,
published way back in nineteen fifteen.
Speaker 1: Right, Einstein the father of modern gravity theory. And it's,
like you said, a beautiful, intricate theory shaped everything for
over a century. It's accepted. But even Einstein himself didn't
he see a problem.
Speaker 2: He did, or at least the theory presented a problem
when you looked closely at large scales.
Speaker 1: Yeah, fundamental puzzle, right, especially when you look at galaxies,
this whole missing mass.
Speaker 2: Thing exactly, the missing mass problem.
Speaker 1: Explain that a bit. Why is mass missing?
Speaker 2: Well, think about it. We can see stars, gas, dust clouds,
and galaxies. We can measure how much stuff is there roughly,
and we can see how fast everything's spinning. Okay, The
problem is when you calculate the gravitational poll needed to
hold a galaxy together given how fast it's spinning, the
gravity from all the visible stuff just isn't enough, not
nearly enough.
Speaker 1: So based on what we see, galaxies should just fly apart.
Speaker 2: They really should. Yeah, like a spinning merry go round
that suddenly disintegrates based purely on the visible matter in
Einstein's gravity. They're moving too fast to stay together, right,
But obviously they don't fly apart.
Speaker 1: They hold together just fine. So what's the explanationon what's
holding them?
Speaker 2: Ah? Well, that is the million dollar question in mainstream cosmology,
and the prevailing answer, the sort of placeholder solution is
dark mattal dark matter.
Speaker 1: We hear that term a lot, we do.
Speaker 2: It's everywhere in popular science. But here's the kicker, the
really crucial detail that sometimes gets glossed over. Despite decades,
literally decades of searching, spending enormous amounts of money on
incredibly sensitive experiments, there is zero direct empirical proof that
dark matter actually exists.
Speaker 1: None, wait, none at all. But it's talked about like
it's a fact.
Speaker 2: It's talked about as a necessity for the theory to work.
It's purely hypothetical. It's supposed to be this invisible, undetectable
stuff that doesn't interact with light or electromagnetism, only with gravity.
Speaker 1: So it's like a theoretical patch, a band aid you
called it.
Speaker 2: You could call it that, or a fudge factor. Some
critics might say it's invoked solely because the existing theory
of gravity doesn't match observations without it. It's continued necessity
really highlights a huge gap in our understanding. It makes
you ask, you know, are we just looking for something
that isn't there because our model.
Speaker 1: Needs it to be, or is the model itself maybe
missing something.
Speaker 2: Fundamental percisely is the foundation flawed?
Speaker 1: And that, my friends, is exactly where we pivot right
into this radical maybe paradigm shifting idea. What if the
universe isn't held together mainly by gravity, or at least
not by gravity plus some invisible mystery matter. Okay, what
if the real dominant force, the thing binding the cosmos
together on the grandest scales, is something way more familiar,
something we use every day, but maybe vastly underestimated in
its cosmic power. What if it's electricity.
Speaker 2: Ah, so that's the core of it, the electric universe.
Speaker 1: That's the electric universe theory or EUT, and it paints
a profoundly different picture. Instead of space being mostly empty
vacuum with isolated gravity, wells uh.
Speaker 2: Huh, this theory says space itself is permeated by this vast, intricate,
energetic sea of ionized particles, a massive, pervasive field of
plasma plasma.
Speaker 1: Okay, define that again. Not just lightning, Not just lightning.
Speaker 2: No, it's often called the fourth state of matter, beyond
solid liquid gas. Think of our sun. It's mostly plasma.
In fact, almost all stars are plasma. Oka And get this,
plasma makes up over ninety nine point nine percent of
the visible universe. Nebulae the space between galaxies. It's mostly plasma.
It's the dominant form of matter. We can actually see.
Speaker 1: Ninety nine point nine percent. Wow, I didn't realize it
was that much.
Speaker 2: It's almost everything visible. And according to eut this plasma
isn't just sitting there, it's active. It functions like a dynamic,
interconnected single electric circuit.
Speaker 1: A single circuit connecting what.
Speaker 2: Connecting everything, every galaxy, every star, every solar system, conducting
electricity efficiently over these immense cosmic distances. And here's a
really crucial part of the theory. It claims that within
this circuit, information and energy get transmitted much faster than light.
Speaker 1: Whoa okay, hold on faster than light? That breaks Einstein
right there, doesn't it.
Speaker 2: It certainly challenges a key part of relativity. Yes, and
if this whole idea is true, well it's not just
a tweak to the current models. It means a complete
rewrite physics, astronomy, our whole understanding of the cosmos. Everything changes.
Speaker 1: Okay, that is a bold claim. A universe wired by
electricity faster than light communication. It flies in the face
of so much established science. But you mentioned myths and
archaeology earlier. Where does that fit in? That seems even
stranger right.
Speaker 2: This is where it gets, as you said, really interesting,
because the EUT proponents, they aren't just looking at physics
equations or telescope data. They're planning what they see as surprising,
compelling evidence in ancient archaeology, geological formations here on Earth
and other planets, and in those myths passed down for millennium.
How so, the EUT claims that way back in our
deep past, our Solar System, our night sky looked totally different.
It was this vibrant, active tapestry of glowing plasma, much
more visually dynamic than.
Speaker 1: Today, glowing plasma in the sky.
Speaker 2: That's the idea. And then some kind of draftic cosmic
event happened, a cataclysm, something huge that fundamentally changed that
celestial view. And our ancestors, they claim, witnessed this, They
saw it happen, they saw it, experienced it, and recorded
it on scientific journals, obviously, But in their stories, their symbols,
their art, their myths, and these records, they argue, don't
just describe changes in the sky. They describe catastrophes that
left physical scars, not just on Earth but all over
the Solar System.
Speaker 1: Scars like physical marks on planet exactly.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about some of those purported scars. Take the
Grand Canyon right here on Earth, iconic landmark, mainstream geology.
He says it formed slowly, right, tectonic uplift Colorado River
eroding it over millions of years.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the standard explanation, slow and steady.
Speaker 2: Slow and steady. But UT proponents say, look closer, look
at the river and its tributaries from above, like on
satellite images. They split off at these really odd but
very consistent angles.
Speaker 1: Odd angles, how so well.
Speaker 2: They argue these patterns, the junctions, the branching. It looks
remarkably like current flowing and electronics, like the patterns you
see in electrical circuit diagrams. Many EUT folks are electrical
engineers or whatever, so these patterns jump out at them.
Speaker 1: Okay, circuit patterns in a canyon. That's a leap, it is.
Speaker 2: But here's their reasoning. They see the universe as this
ocean of electricity. But normally it's all balanced, stable, like
the wiring in your house. You don't see the power
unless something goes wrong, like a short circuit or a
power surge. Right, But if the electrical balance of our
solar system gets thrown off. The theory says, you get
these violent arcs, huge interplanetary lightning bolts, jumping between planets,
lightening between plants, colossal discharges, and these arcs, they claim,
travel across surfaces, leaving behind these deep, distinct, geometrically weird scars.
They literally etched the landscape.
Speaker 1: So the Grand Canyon possibly carved by a giant space
lightning bolt, not just a river.
Speaker 2: That's the EUT perspective. Yes, yeah, or at least initiated
by electrical discharge and maybe later modified by water. But
the primary carving agent, they argue, was electrical m mars.
Speaker 1: You mentioned Vals Marineras earlier, that huge canyon system. Does
that fit this idea too.
Speaker 2: It's a prime example for them. Valas Marinaras is staggering.
It stretches across a distance roughly equal to the entire
United States. It's way deeper than the Grand Canyon. Mainstream
geology talks about tectonics, crust stretching, maybe some ancient water
flow over billions of years, another slow process, another slow process.
But EUT proponents look at it and say, no way,
this looks like something carved it out fast and violently.
Like an enormous lightning bolt, an electric arc advancing unsteadily
across the surface, just gouging out huge chunks of the
planet gouged.
Speaker 1: Wow, does it look like the Grand Canyon patterns parts
of it?
Speaker 2: Yeah, they point to similar branching patterns, similar tributary like
features that look more like electrical discharge patterns than typical
water erosion on that scale.
Speaker 1: Okay, so Earth, Mars, anywhere else?
Speaker 2: Oh? Yeah, they claim these kinds of scars, these massive
canyons and gashes are found on rocky planets and moons
all over the Solar System Venus, Mercury, Pluto, even moons
of the outer planets like Uranus's moon Titania, which has
this enormous gash almost one thousand miles.
Speaker 1: Long, one thousand miles long on a.
Speaker 2: Moon, exactly way out of proportion for typical geological processes
on a small body like that. The fact that these
features appear on such different worlds with different gravity, different geology,
EUT says, the common factor is interplanetary electrical discharge.
Speaker 1: Okay, so if these giant lightning bolts were flying around,
hitting Earth, hitting Mars, what does that mean for our
planet's history? You mentioned a catastrophic.
Speaker 2: Event right, connecting it back to Earth. EUT believers think
these interplanetary bolts have hit Earth multiple times, and they
point specifically to evidence for a really catastrophic electrical event
around twelve thousand years ago.
Speaker 1: Twelve thousand years ago. What was happening then?
Speaker 2: That timing lines up almost perfectly with a known period
of massive climate upheaval, called the Younger Dryas.
Speaker 1: The Younger Dryas I've heard of that rapid warming.
Speaker 2: Ice melt extremely rapid. According to EUT, this wasn't gradual
melting over centuries. It was like the ice caps melted
almost instantly, maybe within a week a week.
Speaker 1: How is that even possible?
Speaker 2: Well, their explanation is a massive electrical event. Imagine the
heat from a colossal interplanetary lightning strike hitting the ice sheets.
The result, unimaginable tsunamis maybe one thousand feet high, scouring coastlines,
sea levels riding hundreds of feet almost overnight, a complete
reshaping of Earth's surface.
Speaker 1: That's terrifying, a global catastrophe. Does mainstream science have an
explanation for the Younger Dryas?
Speaker 2: There are mainstream theories, Yeah, like a giant asteroid or
comet impact, there's some disputed evidence for that, or maybe
a massive solar flare, a huge coronal mass ejection from
the Sun hitting Earth.
Speaker 1: Okay, so big external events are considered, yes.
Speaker 2: But EUT argues that only a massive bolt of interplanetary
lightning can really explain the sheer speed and scale of
the changes, the near instant melting, the colossal.
Speaker 1: Floods, and this ties into flood myths exactly.
Speaker 2: They point out that nearly every culture on Earth has
a flood myth, Gilgamesh, Noah, indigenous stories from the Americas, Africa, Asia, everywhere.
EUT suggests these aren't just local floods, they're collective memories
of actual global catastrophes, backed up, they say, by the
geological evidence of the younger dryas. Wow.
Speaker 1: And these myths do they describe the sky differently too?
Speaker 2: They often do. Yeah, Many ancient myths describe a sky
that looks profound only different from ours today, hinting at
a time when the planets were maybe arranged differently, playing
a much more dramatic visible.
Speaker 1: Role, So a different sky. And you mentioned Saturn earlier,
not Venus, but Saturn being important. This is where it
gets really strange. Right.
Speaker 2: This is where it departs radically from standard astronomy. The
electric universe theory makes this incredible claim. Back then, during
the time of these myths and cataclysms, Venus as we
know it didn't exist yet.
Speaker 1: Venus didn't exist, not in its.
Speaker 2: Current planetary form. Instead, they propose our nearest planetary neighbor
was Saturn.
Speaker 1: Saturn, but it's so far away now.
Speaker 2: Exactly, They suggest it was much much closer, so close
that Earth and Saturn formed a binary planet system like
dance partners, orbiting the Sun together.
Speaker 1: A binary system Earth and Saturn.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And because they were supposedly locked together orbiting and sank,
Saturn wouldn't rise or set in our sky. It would
appear fixed, hanging there, dominating the heavens, likely near the
celestial pole, a constant, massive presence.
Speaker 1: Fixed in the sky like the but a whole planet
kinda yeah.
Speaker 2: And they point to ancient texts like Egyptian descriptions of
the creator god Adam eternally positioned at the poll as
evidence for this configuration.
Speaker 1: Okay, my mind is officially boggled. Where did this idea
even come from? It sounds completely out of left field.
Speaker 2: A lot of It traces back to a very controversial
but influential figure named Immanuel Velakowski. In nineteen fifty he
published a bestseller called Worlds in Collision.
Speaker 1: Worlds in Collision I've heard of That book, very controversial,
extremely Veelikowski basically argued that Earth has gone through these
massive cosmic upheavals within human memory.
Speaker 2: And he didn't base this on telescopes, but on painstakingly
collecting ancient records from everywhere Egyptian papyri, Babylonian tablets, mind codices,
hindu Vedas.
Speaker 1: So he was looking at ancient texts and myths yes.
Speaker 2: And archaeological evidence like ancient calendars that suddenly stopped making sense,
plus radical interpretations of geology, paleontology, even palaeomagnetism. He pioneered
what's called comparative.
Speaker 1: Mythology, comparing myths across.
Speaker 2: Cultures right looking for common themes beyond just flood myths.
He found recurring stories told differently but with similar cores,
suggesting they weren't just borrow tales but shared human memory
of catastrophes that took place in historical times. He took
these myths literally.
Speaker 1: Literally, as in the gods fighting were actual planets, that.
Speaker 2: Was his interpretation. Yes, these ancient gods weren't distant lights,
they were immense celestial bodies, often planets, that presided over
mythical Golden Age, and central to that Golden Age, he argued,
was Saturn.
Speaker 1: Saturn again, the ruler of the Golden Age.
Speaker 2: That's what many ancient traditions seemed to say. The Egyptians
Adam at the Pole, the Babylonian supreme god Anu at
the polestar linked to Saturn. The Greeks and Romans saw
Saturn or Cronos as the primeval sun god, ruling a
lost paradise.
Speaker 1: The sun god. But Saturn isn't the Sun.
Speaker 2: Well, the old Latin name for Saturn was Soul, meaning sun,
and the Greek name Cronos was also sometimes Helios, also
meaning sun. Historians noted this connection to Quotos and Helios
were once the same god. Astronomical histories from Greece, Persia,
China all claimed Saturn ruled the world. Okay, the Golden
Age itself is called the Reign of Saturn. The original
site of Rome was called Saturnia. Even the Jewish Sabbath
Saturday is literally Saturn's Day.
Speaker 1: Ah, the connections are certainly there, and the names and myths,
But how could Saturn, even if closer, be that central.
It still seems strange.
Speaker 2: Vilikowski found it strange too, That was the puzzle. Eut's
answer is it was that close. It genuinely dominated the sky,
and that binary system configuration fixed, always there, a constant
looming presence.
Speaker 1: Okay. And someone continued this work after Velakovsky.
Speaker 2: Yes, David Talbot built on it, looking deeply into ancient
symbols and prehistoric art worldwide, and he found this recurring
image everywhere from prehistoric times that depicted a sky totally
different from ours, but consistent across cultures. It's called the
cosmic wheel or the celestial mill.
Speaker 1: The cosmic wheel. What did it look like?
Speaker 2: It was often shown as the throne of the gods
or the eye of the cosmos. You find versions in
ancient Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, in Ireland, California, Africa, Scandinavia, Mexico, Mesopotamia,
basically everywhere.
Speaker 1: What did it show?
Speaker 2: It consistently shows three objects arranged in a specific way
in the center, sort of furthest back is a large,
dominant planet identified as Saturn, then closer to the viewer,
a smaller, darker planet identified as Mars.
Speaker 1: Saturn and Mars. What's the third object in.
Speaker 2: The middle between Saturn and Mars. There's this glowing object
emitting light and energy, and the theory suggests the combined
energy of these three objects washed over the Earth.
Speaker 1: Energy washing over Earth. What kind of energy this.
Speaker 2: Continuous flow of cosmic plasma supposedly, and they make the
extraordinary claim that this energy gave humans incredibly long life
spans hundreds or even thousands of years, echoing those old
myths and king lists. This whole period was the Golden
Age of Saturn, peace abundance, until until something terrible happened.
The Golden age ended violently.
Speaker 1: Okay, what ended it? How does the cosmic wheel explain
the end?
Speaker 2: Remember wal Thornhill, the electrical engineer. When he saw Talbot's
work on the cosmic wheel, he apparently had this light
bulb moment. He said the design was instantly recognizable because
it looked just like electric discharges in the laboratory.
Speaker 1: So the wheel itself represented an electrical phenomenon, that.
Speaker 2: Was his interpretation, powered by immant electrical forces. And think
about how the Golden Age supposedly ended in myth often
with a war between gods.
Speaker 1: Right, Zeus versus Kronos, Jupiter versus.
Speaker 2: Saturn exactly, and what was the god's favorite weapon? The thunderbolt?
Hindu texts describe God's warring in the sky with energy
weapons Zeus's thunderbolt, Apollos arrows, Neptune's trident. Et interprets these
not as metaphors, but as descriptions of actual celestial thunderbolts
jumping between planets.
Speaker 1: Planets shooting lightning at each other.
Speaker 2: That's the visual ancestors see these immense electrical arcs and
interpreting them as God's battling.
Speaker 1: Okay, so back to the cosmic wheel Saturn, Mars and
that glowing middle object. What was that?
Speaker 2: The glowing middle object they identify as Venus?
Speaker 1: Venus, But you said it didn't exist yet.
Speaker 2: Didn't exist in its current form. The theory gets even
wilder here. It claims Venus didn't form slowly like other planets.
It was born violently and much more recently. Wow, it
proposes Venus was ejected from Jupiter.
Speaker 1: Ejected from Jupiter, Jupiter spat it out.
Speaker 2: Essentially, Yeah, a massive junk of Jupiter, which is mostly
plasma anyway, got expelled. It started as a giant comet
blazing through the Inner Solar System before eventually settling into
its current orbit as Venus, a.
Speaker 1: Comet that became a planet. Is there any mythical support
for that, they argue, Yes.
Speaker 2: The Greek myth of Athena being born fully formed from
Zeus' Jupiter's forehead shaking Heaven and Earth Maya and Babylonian
myths calling Venus a fiery or blazing star like a comet.
The Egyptian myths of isis link to Venus becoming a
fiery star that descended to the Earth.
Speaker 1: Okay, this is a lot. So Venus is born, things
get unstable.
Speaker 2: Exactly Earth, the new comet Venus, Mars, Saturn. They all
drifted too close. Somehow. The proximity led to those massive
bolts of lightning.
Speaker 1: Arcing between them, and that's what carved the canyons, that's.
Speaker 2: The claim, blasting craters in the Moon, tearing through Earth
to make the Grand Canyon, gouging out Valis Marineris on Mars.
This chaotic war of the gods, this electrical mayhem, eventually
settled down. The planets moved to their current orbits, leaving
us with the scars and the quieter sky. We see.
Speaker 1: Now, it's an absolutely epic story, mind blowing really. But
if these events were so visual, so dramatic, are there
other traces maybe an ancient art besides the cosmic wheel?
Speaker 2: Eut proponents think so. They point to ancient petroglyphs, rock
carvings found all over the world. You know the famous
Lasco Cave art, right, yeah, seventeen thousand years old. Amazing detail, realistic.
Speaker 1: Animals, Yeah, incredible stuff.
Speaker 2: But then in late rock art, depictions of humans often
become really crude, just stick figures outstretched arms, maybe dots
beside the body. Why would artists capable of realism suddenly
draw people like that?
Speaker 1: Hmmm, that is a bit strange.
Speaker 2: Well. Plasma physicist Anthony Parratt studied high energy plasma discharges
in labs, and he generated computer animations of how these
discharges evolve. He claims these ancient stick figures aren't humans
at all.
Speaker 1: Now humans, then, what are they?
Speaker 2: They're animations step by step snapshots of a plasma discharge phenomena,
the specific type called a Z pinch instability viewed from
the side it naturally forms a central column, the body,
a torus or ring around it, the outstretched arms, a
sort of champagne glass shape on top, and a squashed
bell at the bottom.
Speaker 1: You're saying ancient people drew pictures of plasma physics experiments
happening in the sky.
Speaker 2: Essentially, yes, they saw these giant glowing objects in the sky,
these plasma formations during that chaotic period and recorded them.
They might have looked like giant glowing figures, easily interpreted
as God's battling in the heavens. Imagine seeing that bright, loud, violent.
Speaker 1: Okay, I can see how that would be interpreted as
God's fighting.
Speaker 2: Eventually, the theory goes the cosmic lightning stopped, the planets settled,
and these dramatic plasma displays faded, leaving us with the
sky we have today. Wow.
Speaker 1: Okay, So that's the narrative, ancient myths, geological scars, plasmistic figures.
It all weaves together, but it's still mostly interpretation. Right
to be actual science and needs hard proof. Can it
be proven in a lab?
Speaker 2: That's the critical question, absolutely, and eut proponents know they
need empirical validation. Now, think about stars like our sun.
Mainstream science says they're powered by nuclear fusion deep inside, right,
hydrogen fuses into helium, releasing energy, right.
Speaker 1: The standard model of stars.
Speaker 2: But eut scientists disagreed that fusion is the whole story,
or even the main driver. They believe electricity plays a
much bigger role, that stars aren't just self contained fusion reactors,
but are actual powered externally by those powerful electric currents
that permeate all of space, drawing energy from the cosmic
plasma circuit.
Speaker 1: So stars are like giant light bulbs plugged into the
universe's electrical grid.
Speaker 2: That's a pretty good analogy. Yeah, yeah, that's their core
idea about stars. And to test this, there's the Sapphire Project,
an international team working in Canada for the last decade
or so.
Speaker 1: The Sapphire Project. What are they doing.
Speaker 2: Their goal is incredibly ambitious, trying to recreate a star's
plasma environment in a lab to see if they can
get stellar like effects without nuclear fusion. How they built
this sophisticated plasma reactor chamber, filled it with low pressure
hydrogen gas mimicking space, and then pumped in a powerful
electrical current and they created this glowing ball.
Speaker 1: Of plasma a mini Sun in a box.
Speaker 2: Kind of, and interestingly, the plasma apparently self organized into stable,
donut shaped fortices called double layers. These are like electrified shells,
trapping particles, creating a bound somewhat analogous perhaps to a
star's structure.
Speaker 1: Okay, self organizing plasma. What did they measure? Did it
act like a star?
Speaker 2: Well, here's what they reported. They claimed to measure things
never seen in a lab before. Electron densities matching the suns,
huge electrical fields like eighty thousand volts per meter, a
sharp voltage drop off at the surface just like the
Sun's photosphere, core temperatures supposedly over eight hundred and eighty
thousand degrees celsius, hotter than the Sun's surface, uniform thermal
radiation like the Sun, and higher energy in the plasma's
corona its outer layer again like.
Speaker 1: The Sun, wait hotter than the Sun's surface, and all
this without fusion, just electricity.
Speaker 2: That is the claim they created this mini Sun using
only electricity. But here's the part they described as most shockingly.
Speaker 1: There's more.
Speaker 2: They reported observing transmutation. The reactor was apparently changing elements
like iron and tungsten, into other elements like magnesium, calcium, titanium,
and seventeen others.
Speaker 1: Transmutation, yeah, alchemy, changing lead into gold kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: Essentially, yes, changing one stable element into others. They explicitly
claimed they repeatedly transmuted tonsten and iron into more than
seventeen other stable elements. This, they argue, is exactly what
EUT predicts stars as electrical phenomena, potentially transmuting elements via
electrical processes, not just fusion.
Speaker 1: If that's true, that's revolutionary, not just for astronomy, but
for energy.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. It hints at tapping into that quantum vacuum energy,
the ether that Tesla and Kozier have talked about. If
they could harness this potentially unlimited clean energy, it's a
massive claim.
Speaker 1: Massive is an understatement, Okay, But there's another hurdle for EUT.
Isn't there this faster than light thing? You said, the
cosmic circuit transmits energy or information much faster than light.
Einstein said that was impossible.
Speaker 2: He did it was a fundamental speed limit in his universe.
But it turns out on this point Einstein seems to
have been wrong, and it's been proven. We're talking about
quantum entanglement.
Speaker 1: Uh entanglement, the spooky action at a distance.
Speaker 2: That's the one where two particles seem linked, communicating instantly
no matter how far apart.
Speaker 1: They are instantly, not just faster than light, but literally
zero time delay.
Speaker 2: Zero time delay. Let's try to break it down. Simply
imagine two linked particles. If one spins up, its partner
must spin down instantly conservation of momentum. But in quantum mechanics,
particles are weird until you measure them. They're in a
fuzzy state, spinning both up and down at the same time.
It's called superposition, described by their wave function.
Speaker 1: Okay, fuzzy state. Then you measure one.
Speaker 2: Right, You measure particle A, and poof, its wave function collapses.
It chooses a state. Say it's spinning up instantly, you
know particle B must be spinning down. And when you
check particle B, its wave function has also collapsed instantly
into the downstate, even if you didn't touch it.
Speaker 1: Okay, my brain hurts already. The measurement of one instantly
affects the other, no matter.
Speaker 2: The distance, No matter the distance. Put particle A in
New York, particle B on the Moon, measure A, B
collapses instantly. Light takes one point two eight seconds to
get to the moon. B doesn't wait.
Speaker 1: It doesn't wait. Okay.
Speaker 2: Particle A in Tokyo, particle B on Mars. Measure A
B collapses instantly. Light takes maybe twelve minutes to Mars.
B doesn't wait. Still instant, still, instant. Particle A in London,
Particle B in the Andromeda galaxy two point five million
light years away.
Speaker 1: Measure A don't tell me. B collapses instantly.
Speaker 2: B collapses instantly. It doesn't wait two point five million
years for the news. Traveling at light speed, it knows immediately.
That's the spooky action that freaked Einstein out.
Speaker 1: I can see why it seems to violate causality, locality,
everything exactly.
Speaker 2: Einstein hated it. He thought quantum mechanics must be incomplete.
In nineteen thirty five, he and Podolski and Rosen the
EPR paper argued there must be some hidden variable set
at the start, determining the states beforehand, because nothing can
go faster than light and effects must be local. Instantaneous
action at a distance made no sense.
Speaker 1: To him, so it was a theoretical argument for decades.
Speaker 2: Pretty much until nineteen sixty four physicist John Bell came
up with the theorem Bell's theorem. It basically designed an
experiment to test if they were hidden variables or if
the spooky action was real, to see if particles really
don't care about distance or the speed of light.
Speaker 1: And it was testable.
Speaker 2: It was testable, and in the nineteen seventies experiments by
people like Iron Aspect started showing Bell was right and
Einstein on this point was wrong. The spooky action was real. Wow.
Then fast forward to twenty twenty two, a laying aspect,
John Klauser and Anton Zeilinger performed even more rigorous, loophole
free versions of these experiments. They proved definitively quantum particles
are non local. They do exchange information instantly, ignoring distance
and the speed of light. They won the Nobel Prize
in Physics for it.
Speaker 1: So it settled science. Now, instantaneous quantum connection is real.
Speaker 2: It's experimentally verified beyond reasonable doubt, Which brings us back
to the huge question.
Speaker 1: How are they communicating instantly? What's the medium? If it's
not light speed signals, what is it exactly?
Speaker 2: Sound needs air or water, radio waves need the electromagnetic field.
What's the medium for quantum entanglement? And this is where
EUT proponents jump back in.
Speaker 1: Let me guess the plasma bingo.
Speaker 2: They suggest the medium is that very same plasma that
fills the entire universe, the ether that Cozy Revan Tesla
talked about. This omnipressent energetic field is what allows for
instantaneous connection, they argue, it's the underlying fabric.
Speaker 1: So quantum entanglement becomes another piece of evidence for the
electric universe for them.
Speaker 2: Yes, it potentially provides the mechanism for that faster than
light communication the theory requires, and it links back to
the Sapphire project, possibly tapping into this zero point energy
of the plasma field. It's why, despite being fringe EUT
and projects like Sapphire persists. The potential implications, if right,
are just enormous from cosmology at clean energy, maybe even
explaining consciousness. Some go even further, but that's another story.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's recap this whirlwind early universe mostly hydrogen gravity
pulls it together, sure, but maybe electricity ignites the stars
and keeps them going powered by cosmic plasma. Then maybe
just thirty five hundred years ago, Venus pops out of
Jupiter like a comet, causes chaos, Earth, Mars, Saturn bounce
around like billiard balls.
Speaker 2: Uh huh. The Cosmic Catastrophe.
Speaker 1: Period, great giant lightning arcs between planets, carving the Grand
Canyon valsmarneris blasting the Moon. Our ancestors saw this, drew
plasma discharges as stick figures and cosmic wheels. And now
the Sapphire Project claims they've made a mini Sun with
just electricity, maybe even transmuting elements and quantum entanglement proves
faster than light. Connection is real, possibly via this universal plasma.
Speaker 2: That's a pretty good summary to the UT narrative.
Speaker 1: It's an amazing story. It hangs together in a weird,
compelling way. It connects dots across geology, myth physics. But
the big butt is any of this real? According to
you know, mainstream science?
Speaker 2: Wow? Probably not, That's the short answer from the overwhelming
scientific and sensus.
Speaker 1: Probably not.
Speaker 2: Okay, why not? While the story is imaginative, the scientific
community largely views EUT as pseudoscience. There are major, well
documented problems for starters that whole venus is a commat
thing three five hundred years ago. Astronomical records completely contradicted.
We have detailed observations of Venus behaving like a regular
planet from Babylonians, Chinese astronomers, Mayans, going back thousands of
years before Vilakowsky's supposed comet birth date. Its orbit was tracked.
It wasn't a newcomer comet.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's a big historical contradiction. What about comets themselves?
Didn't a NASA mission test some EUT ideas.
Speaker 2: It did. Remember NASA's Deep Impact mission in two thousand
and five. They slammed a probe into Comet Temple.
Speaker 1: One right to see what's inside exactly.
Speaker 2: And wal Thornhill, a major EUT figure, made very specific
predictions based on his electrical comet model. He said there'd
be huge electrical arcs before impact, the probe's equipment would
fail electrically, the commat would shoot out X rays and lightning.
And none of that happened. Zero n A. The probe worked,
find no electrical fireworks, just the expected dust and debris plume.
It was a direct public failure of specific EUT predictions about.
Speaker 1: Comments ouch failed predictions are tough for any theory.
Speaker 2: They are, and critics point out that while EUT supporters
might claim other predictions were right, it's hard to find
clear examples that were truly unique and verifiable, and they
tend to ignore the big misses like deep impact.
Speaker 1: What about Thornhill himself. You mentioned his credentials were questioned.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's often called a physicist or electrical engineer by followers,
but critics say there's a lack of verifiable evidence for
those academic credentials. His known background is as an IBM
computer salesman, okay. And then there's his attitude towards peer review,
the standard process where other scientists check your work. You
famously dismissed it, reportedly saying he didn't need it because
he had no peers.
Speaker 1: Not exactly embracing scientific scrutiny, not at all.
Speaker 2: Critics see that as incredibly arrogant, unscientific. Real science relies
on collaboration and rigorous challenge.
Speaker 1: What about the myths, the cosmic wheel, Saturn's Golden age
that seemed compelling.
Speaker 2: Critics argue that's mostly cherry picking, selecting myths and symbols
that fit the narrative while ignoring others, and a key point,
Saturn's rings. If Saturn was that close and dominant, wouldn't
its most distinctive feature, the rings, be part of the story?
Speaker 1: Good point? Were they mentioned?
Speaker 2: No, and the rings weren't even discovered until sixteen ten
by Galileo with a telescope. How could ancients depict or
describe something related to a close, detailed saturn if they
couldn't even see its most obvious feature. It suggests the
interpretations are likely symbolic, not literal, observations of close encounters.
Speaker 1: Okay, that makes sense. And the Sapphire project, the mini
sun the transmutation that sounded like potential hard evidence.
Speaker 2: Potential maybe, but highly suspect in the eyes of mainstream science.
The big issue is transparency and verification. Until their data
is fully shared, peer reviewed by independent experts and their
experiments six ccessfully replicated by other labs, skepticism remains very high.
Speaker 1: So no independent confirmation yet not.
Speaker 2: That's widely accepted. Critics basically say we have to assume
their plasma reactor doesn't work as claimed until proven otherwise,
and they point out if it really did what they
say unlimited energy transmutation, they'd be drowning in funding from
governments and corporations Instead.
Speaker 1: They're constantly looking for money. Yeah, you mentioned that right.
Speaker 2: It raises red flags for critics. And then there's doctor L.
Morgan who was he He was reportedly the only actual
plasma physicists on the Sapphire team when it started, and
his assessment in emails that became public was brutal. He
called the whole electric universe concept fraudulent.
Speaker 1: Bullshit, wow, strong words.
Speaker 2: Very He said the proponents don't really know any physics
or mathematics, called them crackpot scientists, amateurs and bozos. He
said he quit because they couldn't pay him anymore and
he was tired of working with amateurs. He'd been interested
in Velikowski back in the saye thought it was a
great yarn, but concluded the physics was just wrang.
Speaker 1: That's pretty damning testimony from an insider physicist. Okay, so
it seems the scientific case against EUT is quite strong.
But this whole situation it brings up a bigger point,
doesn't it about how science itself works or maybe doesn't work.
Speaker 2: Sometimes it absolutely does. EUT is largely considered pseudoscience. Okay,
but think about Velakowski again. Worlds in Collision was a
massive bestseller. The public was fascinated, but the scientific establishment,
especially astronomers, actively worked to suppress it.
Speaker 1: Suppress it how They pressured.
Speaker 2: His publisher McMillan, threatening boycott's to their textbooks if they
didn't drop the book. McMillan eventually caved, transferred it to
another publisher, and it vanished from the bestseller list despite
huge sales. It was an extraordinary move.
Speaker 1: They basically censored a best selling book because they didn't
like its ideas.
Speaker 2: That's what it looks like. They argued they were protecting
the public from disinformation. But Velikowski looked he was probably
wrong about everything scientifically. Commat vienna is the electric sun,
all of it.
Speaker 1: But it's okay to be wrong.
Speaker 2: It's essential to be wrong sometimes that's how science progresses.
As Carl Sagan said, science is a self correcting process.
New ideas must face rigorous scrutiny and testing. But the
key word is scrutiny, not suppression. The worst part of
the Velakovsky affair wasn't that his ideas were wrong. It
was that scientists tried to shut down the debate entirely.
Speaker 1: And that pattern trying to shut down debate instead of
engaging with evidence. Does that still happen?
Speaker 2: Well, you hear arguments about it in various fields today,
don't you. Areas where people claim there are legitimate scientific
disagreements but only one side gets amplified, or dissenting views
face obstacles in publication or funding, or researchers feel pressured
to conform to a dominant narrative.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you definitely hear those concerns.
Speaker 2: And that's worrying because suppression isn't science. It might be politics,
it might be religion, but it's not the path to knowledge.
When science gets used primarily to maintain certain power structures,
or economic interests or political agendas.
Speaker 1: It stops being about finding the truth.
Speaker 2: It potentially does. It can be used to give more
wealth to the wealthy, more power to the powerful, maybe
even weaponized to divide people.
Speaker 1: And I think most of us listening we don't have
a dog in those fights. We just want to know
what's actually true, right exactly?
Speaker 2: But imagine being a scientist today. Do you pursue a risky,
unconventional idea that might overturn orthodoxy but could get you ostracized, defunded,
maybe even deplatformed, or do you stick to this safe
accepted science that leads to grants, publications, maybe some media appearances.
Speaker 1: That's a tough spot. It could lead to self censorship.
People just stop asking the risky questions.
Speaker 2: Precisely, and history shows us again and again that accepted
and conventional ideas are often wrong. Fundamental breakthroughs often come
from unexpected sources, from people challenging the status quo. Like
Segan also pointed out, So.
Speaker 1: The takeaway isn't necessarily whether the electric universe theory itself
is right or wrong.
Speaker 2: Maybe not. Maybe the bigger takeaway is about the process.
It leaves you with a rather provocative thought, something to
chew on when there's a mainstream scientific view out there
that suppresses debate and sensor scientists that disagree that mainstream
scientific view exists for money and for power, not for
the truth. That's a strong claim from the sources we
looked at, but it's definitely food for thought about how
knowledge progresses or doesn't. Wow.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, what an incredible mind bending journey that was
seriously deep dive into the electric universe. We went from
ancient myths and planetary scars supposedly carved by cosmic lightning
all the way to lab experiments trying to make mini
suns with electricity, and even into the truly weird world
of quantum entanglement defying Einstein.
Speaker 2: We covered a lot of ground the theory, the evidence
presented for it, the critiques against it.
Speaker 1: Exactly. We looked at the arguments for it, but also
really dug into the mainstream counter arguments, the failed predictions,
the questions about credentials and data, and the bigger questions.
This all raises about how science works, how debates happen,
or sometimes how they're stifled.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it touches on some fundamental issues.
Speaker 1: So regardless of whether you walk away thinking the universe
is electric or sticking with gravity and dark matter, we
really hope this deep dive got you thinking, thinking about
the huge possibilities out there in the cosmos, and also
about the stories we tell, ancient and modern, about our
place within it, and.
Speaker 2: Maybe, just maybe, in this age where information is everywhere,
the most valuable skill isn't just knowing stuff or having
all the answers. Maybe it's about knowing how to question
the answers you're given, and maybe trying to understand why
some questions some theories seem to be discouraged while others
are promoted.
Speaker 1: Keep questioning, keep thinking critically exactly.
Speaker 2: Stay curious about the narratives, about the evidence, and maybe
even about the silences. Always dig deeper.