Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hello everyone! So, my title. My talk is titled; Creator's Second Hand but I
probably wouldn't be able to explain this title, not until the very end of my
talk so I ask you to wait a little bit for it.
Now I'm gonna give you some introduction on what I'm going to talk
about and that will be, first of all I'm gonna give some general questions,
general points about electricity and gravity in space and what we can
probably explain with the help of electromagnetism. And then I'm gonna give
you a couple of theories by Pavel Mantashyan shine on alternative to dark
matter and formation of the solar system. And then I'm gonna give you a promised
conclusion about the title of my talk and what is what, what's the point of my
talking in general, OK. So now, since I've known, since I've mentioned Pavel Mantashyan,
I'm gonna say a couple of words about him. He's an inventor and author of
more than 60 inventions, four books and 30 articles, but since they are in Russian, I
don't give any names here. It's actually that we've never met in person. It's that I
read his books and I really like them and since I've already, I was
into Electric Universe stuff at that time, we've agreed that
I will come here and give a talk because Pavel Mantashyan cannot give a talk
in English, so it ended up like that.
Okay now, we've never met in person as I mentioned because he lives in Russia but
I live in Belarus and maybe some of you
might wonder where it is; so I'm going to show you.
Here's a map of Europe with my country. And it just so happens that Immanuel
Velikovsky was born in Belarus; he was born in Vitebsk, a couple of hundred
kilometers from where I was born and where I live in Minsk. And OK, so that's
kind of where it all started right. And so at the right you can see our
national flag and I wouldn't put it here if it weren't for this vertical band
that you can see on the left.
This is a really archaic piece of ornament and I might be a bit paranoid
but it looks kinda like Peratt's Squatterman or something like that, OK. So I'll
just give this bait so maybe you would come and search more info about my
country. OK, since I've shown you where Belarus is, I'm gonna ask you where we are
in terms of theories and ideas and hypotheses, and of course if you look at
modern astrophysics you would find that it is pretty much dominated by gravity.
OK, so we kind of have this huge thing of gravity and only a thin layer of
everything else on the top of it, OK. So just like Don Scott have quoted that
"If there is electromagnetism, well, it probably doesn't do anything." OK, it's just a
decoration of sorts. And so, there is the principle of charge neutrality of cosmic
objects whether it is explicitly stated or implicitly, kind of being there,
OK, which states that there are no electric currents there, there is no
net charge separation etc etc. But when people try to
kind of use this worldview to describe the real data that we have from observations,
they have kind of, they get kind of odd results and in order to fit those
results into the hypotheses and theories; they have to invent some sort of
crutches or even peglegs maybe. Those artificial things like dark matter and
dark energy and many, many other things. Well, I'm gonna talk about dark matter
a little bit later but I just want to note about the dark energy that when people
say that universe is expanding and the space is expanding, in my opinion this is
logically incoherent statements. Well if you say that the ether is expanding, well
that's ok with me. I find it a good idea but the universe cannot expand. If you
try to define all the notions really carefully, you would find that this is a logically incoherent
statement. But if you want to discuss this please contact me, I don't have
much time to discuss it here, ok? So, since we kinda know where we are now, where can
we go from here, OK.
So we can we can suggest or hypothesize that there is charge separation and
electric currents in space and maybe that would allow us to throw out all of
these crutches and go along on our own feet, OK. So maybe we should hypothesize
that electromagnetism plays a major role alongside gravity in the universe. And so
the central hypothesis of the proposed theory by Pavel Mantshyan, and I'm
going to reinstate it a little bit later, is that electric charges do exist in
space and he says that they exist actually on stars, OK. And now some
general points that I've promised on electromagnetism. I've here listed
the field of applications of electromagnetism, of possible
applications. Now magnetic fields in space, I'm pretty sure that you are aware
that almost every object in the universe posesses at least some sort of magnetic
field associated with it whether it is an induced magnetic field like. for example.
on Venus or it is an intrinsic magnetic field like in the bar magnets or on Earth etc etc
And if you take a look at Maxwell's equations you would find that
the magnetic field actually arises wherever we have a changing electric
field and the changing electric field means that we have a motion of the
source of electric field and the source of electric field are charged particles
and when we move charged particles we get electric currents. So, there's a
pretty much straight forward connection between the electric currents and the
magnetic fields. So if we acknowledge the existence of electric currents thus we
can explain the existence of magnetic fields. It's as simple as that, OK.
Now solar wind acceleration. I'm pretty sure that you're aware that the
fast solar wind that's coming out of a coronal holes is getting accelerated
like from 3 solar radii to up to 10 solar radii, from 350
to up to 800 kilometers per second and slow solar wind also gets an
acceleration of around 100 km/s. And so, how can we explain this acceleration?
Well, the most simple idea that can be probably out there is to suppose that
really the Sun possesses some electric charge, and this electric charge just
accelerates these photons, excuse me, protons of the solar wind outwards
by simple electrostatics, OK. Of course in real in real life so to speak there would
be complications with certain plasma effects like Debye screening and maybe
some other things but
I think it's a good start to start from here, OK. Now sunspots formation, I noted
here that there's a theory by Pavel Manteshyan about how vortices form in
general.
Unfortunately I cannot give many details on this but just in a couple of
words, the theory states,
well basically, that the motion of charged particles in a magnetic field creates
the rotation of these particles due to Lorentz force. And if we have a big
quantity of such particles, they start building up angular momentum in this
field and thus we, due to fluid dynamics, the whole system starts to rotate. And
that's how that's how we get these vortices. Like, for example,
tornadoes or cyclones or anti-cyclones on Earth or eddies in the ocean or
gyros, and that's basically what is a sunspot from the Manteshyan's
theory. And, of course, Ben Davidson has his theory of earth-spots, and this is
pretty much it in my opinion, OK. So in sunspots the charged particles on the
surface of the Sun move in the magnetic field of the Sun and build up this
angular momentum and create this vortex, the circular current essentially, and this
current, because the particles are charged, creates a magnetic field of its
own, and we get the essentially the sunspot, OK. So that's one of the ways of
explaining it.
Now lensing, I'm pretty sure that all of you have heard about the gravitational
lensing, right, but you might ask what's so gravitational about it, OK.
So maybe there is another explanations. I think at the previous EU
conference there was
Edward Dowdye talking about this about the refraction of light in
plasma actually not due to gravitation, and I think that this is a
good idea that plasma really can refract the light, in principle, in theory.
I'm not saying that it really is doing that but we might suppose that it is doing
that and so that this interstellar plasma and plasma around galaxies might actually
refract the light and act as a lens. But more than that, I want to add here that
we have an electro-optical effects like Pockles effect and Kerr effect, they
actually amplify the refractive index of matter due to electricity. So if we have
an electric field applied to this plasma, the refractive index might might be
bigger than in a sort of an ambient plasma, and we might get stronger lensing. This
is also an interesting possibility in my opinion. OK, solar system formation. I'm
gonna talk about this later and differential rotation too. Galactic
rotation curves, that's where the dark matter comes in, OK.
Now, on the left you can see this picture where we have the velocities of
stars or molecular clouds or whatever else plotted versus the
distance from the center of galaxy, OK. And so we can notice that somewhere around
the middle of a spiral arm or maybe somewhere closer to the core, we get this
discrepancy between the measured velocity and the velocity that we can
calculate through Newtonian gravity and Keplerian motion, OK. And if we look at
the bottom to the right, we can see that the measured velocities are getting much,
much higher than what we can calculate and on the bottom of the right you can
see the
simplified form of the Second Newton's Law. And what it states basically is that
the square of the velocity is proportional to force, OK. And what does
that mean if we have an excess velocity, then we should have some
excess force that we cannot account for, OK. And so people are thinking: "Okay, if we
have only gravitational force in space that means that we have some extra
gravitation we cannot account for. And since we all love our gravitational
constant and want to keep it constant, probably right, then it it means that we
have extra matter, extra mass that we we we don't see. And that's how the dark
matter was invented. But maybe there is another explanation to it. Let's remember
what I've said about the magnetic fields, everything possesses some sort of
magnetic field. So, let's take a look at magnetic fields of galaxies. Now on the
left you can see a view of a really over- simplified view of a spiral galaxy
as viewed from, for example, the northern side and the southern side and thus the
plane of picture coincides with the plane of galaxy, OK. And these arrows,
they depict the direction of the magnetic fields. And we have this picture
that, for example, on the northern side of the spiral arm the fields are directed to
the core, from the ends of the spiral arms, OK. And on the south, we get the
opposite direction. And so, in general, it creates the picture of sort of wrapping
around, sort of Birkeland current but with the other geometry, OK. And on the
right we can see another component of the magnetic field of galaxy; it is
a dipolar type field.
L is the distance from the plane of galaxies. So kind of imagine that the
vertical line is a plane of galaxy and if we were moving northwards where L increases, the
field starts rising and then it starts falling off like a field of a bar magnet.
And to the southern side we get the same picture but the sign is inverted, OK. So
these are kind of basic components of the magnetic fields of galaxies. And of
course, the real magnetic field of galaxy looks much more complex, and I'm gonna
show it to you how it should look like, OK. This is the data from ESA Planck
mission, of course, what we see here is the direction of polarization of
electromagnetic radiation which supposedly coincides with the magnetic
field lines and the color depicts the intensity of light which is proportional
to the density of matter, OK. So we really can see that we have these magnetic
field lines going along the spiral arms in the plane of galaxy, and we also
have this dome-shaped bar magnet-type field around it
to the both sides of of the plane of galaxies, OK. So how can we create such
magnetic field? I told you that the electric current is the most simple way
of creating magnetic field, OK. So here's this hypothesis again reinstated: the
stars have an electric charge, OK. And let's let's take a look and maybe we can
create these magnetic fields with this hypothesis, OK. So, here on the left we
again see one of the spiral arms with a piece of a core of galaxy from both
sides and on the right we can see a slice of this spiral arm along this red
curved line so it's kind of we're observing the array of stars moving
along their orbits kind of in parallel but they move on us or from us that really doesn't
matter
OK. So let's suppose that these stars have positive electric charge. This is to
this pretty much arbitrary thing but we should at least make some supposition
about it.
OK, let's suppose it's positive and the stars move outwards from us into the
plane of picture. That would mean that they create the circular magnetic field
that is actually clockwise directed, right. Each star creates a magnetic field
of its own. But if we sum the magnetic fields from each star, we would get this
wavy pattern, OK, going for example at the northern side it goes to the right and at
the southern side to the left, OK.
So we get really this picture of magnetic field lines going in one
direction at the northern side and returning at the southern side. So we get
this sort of wrapping around thing, OK. I think this is pretty pretty simple and
pretty elegant but let's think about this. Let's think how would these fields act
on the stars themselves because the stars as electric currents should, should
be I mean the magnetic field should act on these stars because the stars are
electric currents, OK, if they move. And so we can apply the left hand rule, for
example, of four fingers shows the direction of the motion of the positive
charge, which is in the plane of picture and magnetic field lines enter the palm
of our hand then the thumb would show us the direction of the Lorentz force that
is acting on the northern stars. It would be directed southwards and for the
stars on the southern side, it would be directed northwards. So what we get is
that spiral arm gets squeezed. Again, the same type of behavior as with Birkeland
current filaments, OK. But the geometry is different. And in my opinion,
this is one of the explanations of why the galaxies are so flat. Why do
they have this pancake shaped form, OK. But let's think about another thing. How
would these occurrence, i mean the stars, interact with each other?
The parallel currents, as we know, they attract; this is called the Ampere's law.
And this is actually how the
definition of Ampere as a unit of electric current is defined through this
attraction, OK. So this would be of course the different component of the magnetic
field, a vertical one but still they would attract and how would this attraction
look like in the middle of the spiral arm, in radial terms? In the middle of a
spiral arm, we would get pretty much the same quantity of stars closer to the
core and closer to the rim so we'd be attracted in both sides with pretty much the same
force and it would compensate, OK. But when we are moving closer to the rim outwards
from the core, the quantity of stars closer to the core would increase and the
quantity of stars closer to the rim would decrease, and we would have this
excess attraction to the core. And here on the left, for example, you can see
again this is a really simplified version of this graph, this is an
Ampere's force, R is the difference from the distance from the core, excuse me,
and at some distance you can see that the force is 0 but if we we are getting closer to the
rim we're getting attracted to the core and this kind of may give us really this
unaccounted for
force which people explain with dark matter, OK. And on the right we can see
the sum of this force with the gravitational force one over R
squared. It gets a little rise on the
at the end of the spiral arm, OK. And that can, in principle, this might explain the
excess force that we need, OK. So that's that's that would mean that we don't
need dark matter actually, OK. So, this is one theory and another theory, of course
there are questions because for example closer to the core we would have the
force that drags us to the rim but I'll leave this questions this this is sort
of a second order problem. I'm getting the the principal theory and I
think it really might account for what we observe.
Now about the solar system formation, there are of course a lot of models
a lot of theories but they all face the same difficulty, which is explaining the
angular momentum of the system.
Why is it rotating? And the angular momentum is a sort of a measure of this
rotation. If we look at the expression, it says that we should take a sum of all
the particles that we have and we should take a product of their masses, their
distances from the axis of rotation and their velocities. So the more massive
particles we have, the farther out they are from the axis of rotation and the
faster they go around, the more angular momentum we would have, OK. And the solar
system actually possesses quite a big angular momentum. Of course, everything is
relative here but the important point here is that the angular momentum should
conserve in the closed system. So if we had, for example, a nebula that did not
rotate and it for example would condense by gravitation it wouldn't start rotate
on its own, it would need some external driver to make it to spin it up, OK. In
the solar system the angular momentum is mostly due to Jupiter. And if we take all
of the giant planets, they have like 99% of the angular momentum. So
as I've said, we need to have some external driver and pretty much in
gravitational paradigm the only driver is probably the passing star. So
maybe if some object have passed nearby the solar system it may have spun it up
like wind blowing to the windmill makes it wheel spin ok. But is there another
explanation?
Mantashyan proposes actually another explanation and again centers on the Lorentz
force. So if we had an external magnetic field, like for example a galactic
magnetic field, and if we had charged particles if the planets and the Sun
were charged they actually might get this angular momentum due to interaction
with the external magnetic field of galaxy and here's another hypothesis
explicitly stated that during its formation the Solar System was exposed
to a powerful galactic magnetic field, which was perpendicular to the ecliptic
plane. Now I must note here that we don't actually need to have a an ecliptic
plane here, what we need is only the charged Sun that is moving in this
magnetic field and sort of I'll try to show later how the charged Sun moving in
a magnetic field can get its rotation. That's when you get the equatorial plane
and the ecliptic plane would pretty much coincide with the equatorial plane. But
in this model the planets are being born by the Sun itself, they're being
ejected out of the Sun. So let's suppose that young active and electrically
charged Sun ejected some plasma in space filled with galactic magnetic field.
Those would probably be like a today's coronal mass ejections but much more
massive and basically much more intense and those were the proto-planets
ejected out of the Sun. So I asked a question, what conditions should be met
for the plasma to turn into a real planet? And the answer is that we
should eject from the equatorial plane. Because, well, think about the
launch of the artificial satellites from Earth, we need to launch them from the
equator if we need to get the same orbital direction like the spin of the earth, OK.
Because that's that's how earth helps us with its own rotation, it gives us
additional velocity, additional energy and additional angular momentum too and
thus the external magnetic field that I've mentioned would provide the most
angular momentum. And that's what I'm gonna illustrate right now. Now on the
left we can see a view from the side of the Sun ejecting some piece of plasma
somewhere a bit northwards, OK. B is the magnetic field lines of galaxy, I mean the
lines of the magnetic field of galaxy, v is the velocity of this piece of plasma
and the Lorentz force would be directed into the plane of picture if we suppose
the positive charge. So the Lorentz force would be equal to QvB sin alpha. Now
Q is the charge of this ball of plasma, v is velocity as I've said, and B is the magnetic field
strength. Now, alpha is the angle between the velocity vector and the vector
of the magnetic field. So, if we look at it, when will the Lorentz force be
maximal? It will be maximal when we have the sin alpha equals to unit. That would be
when the alpha, when the angle would be perpendicular, when the velocity would be
perpendicular to the magnetic field and that would be at the ecliptic plane in
the equatorial plane of the Sun, OK. Why would we need this Lorentz force? Again,
think about how the satellites are launched. They do not fly straight up, OK.
They fly straight up to a certain height and then they start tilting the
rocket and kind of fly fly up and then they're flying sideways so they get this
circular orbit, OK. Because if you fly straight up, what would happen is that
upon the return to the Earth at the perigee, you might be too close to Earth.
You might actually fall down to the Earth, OK. So that's what
we need, this kind of sideways force that draws us to the side. And here the
Lorentz force plays the role of such force, and the Lorentz force provides us
the circular orbits, OK. So when we are launched on the right, you can see the
view from the North Pole of the Sun. Here is this piece of plasma being launched and
then it goes sideways due to the Lorentz force, OK. And kind of upon the next
approach to the Sun, it wouldn't be too close to the Sun and would, might survive
actually. And and the Lorentz force would help to build up angular momentum
of the system and make its orbit to expand its orbit make it more circular
overtime, OK. So I promise to explain how the spin actually, is being acquired so the
same story would be the same story would actually be for the Sun and the planets so I'm
gonna talk only about the Sun today right now. And on the right you can see a
schematic of the Sun. We have the rigid solid body core presumably, OK. By by this
point, I'm pretty sure that you've noticed that I'm a little obsessed with
red color. So we have this rigid core, then we have this liquid layer on top of
it if we are to believe Pierre-Marie Robitaille, then we have a charged surface layer where the
charge of the Sun is situated, OK. So when the thing moves in the magnetic field
of galaxy, what happens is that the charged particles again they start
rotating due to Lorentz force and this rotation builds up angular momentum and
due to liquid dynamics the whole charged surface layer starts rotating, OK.
And what that would mean that would mean that due to friction, the liquid layer
would start rotating, OK. And then the core would start rotating
and we will get the the magnetic field eventually, OK. So that's how in this
theory the rotation was acquired by the Sun and by the
planet's later. OK. And I've promised to explain how the differential rotation
might appear. Now if you take a look at this horizontal lines in the liquid
layer I've drawn there, them there for a reason. You might notice that in the
equatorial region actually the thickness of this liquid layer is the smallest and
as we get closer to the poles it increases and so it would be kind of easier for
this liquid layer to rotate in the equatorial region and it might get a
bigger velocity there. And thus we can in principle explain the differential
rotation of the Sun and giant planets, OK. So, what factors would be at play
in this rotation? The rotation would be the more intense, the more electric charge
we've had, OK. So we need to be big and carry enough electric charge; that's
first of all. And and then the charge might be diminished by the solar wind or
see another CME's or anything like that, OK.
So we need to be as far from the Sun as possible to avoid diminishing of, the
blowing off of charge due to the solar wind from this charged surface layer, OK.
So the farther out we are from the Sun and the bigger we are, the more
rotation we would get, OK. So that would mean that the giant planets should spin
the fastest in the solar system. And guess what, we get actually that's what
we observe. Now Jupiter, take a look at this, this is the biggest planet and has
the lowest spin period and the smallest which is somewhat ridiculous,
isn't it? So the Jupiter was really big, it had a lot of electric charge and it's
relatively far out, OK. Saturn was a bit smaller but it was also farther out, so
that this relative solar wind density was smaller at the orbit of Saturn and is
to this day. And the same story with Uranus and Neptune pretty much. And with the other planets. Now
of course there are
concerns about Venus and stuff but I'm not gonna talk about this right now. So
now, what about these young planets? They are still hot in plasma but they are
already rotating and have their magnetic fields. Why wouldn't they eject some
piece of plasma of their own? That might be possible and actually Mantashyan
thinks that it's what what was really happening, OK. And so that's how
the satellites might have been formed. They might have been rejected out of the
planets and gain their angular momentum and their circular orbits in the
magnetic field of the mother planet, so to speak, OK.
So what characteristics should they possess for us to say that really
they were born in such a way?
Well first of all, they should have low eccentricity excuse me low-inclinations
so they should be pretty much in the equatorial plane of the mother
planet because I've shown you before why would that be. And also they should have
low eccentricities because Lorentz force gives us circular orbits and also they
should have the same direction of rotation because they were launched from
the planet itself. Now I mean the same as the spin of the planet. Now I'm pretty sure that you
know that there are a lot of satellites that do not possess these
characteristics, OK. So how could they form? Well, standard theory says that they are
probably the captured bodies.
Well, it might be that but in Mantashyan's theory another explanation is possible,
is that these satellites actually are kind of a brothers of the the planet. So
they might have been born out of the same ejection that gave birth to the
the planet itself. Maybe there was not a uniform piece of plasma going around but
maybe there was some additional splashes or something like that or maybe there
were several pieces of plasma, some of them
merged and some of them, was small but they've somehow managed to survive and
they could have formed all of these so-called irregular satellites, OK. This
is a possibility. Now, let's take a look at some examples. Jupiter, pretty much all
of the inner satellites including the Galilean, the most massive ones, have a
low inclination and low eccentricities. So in this theory, they were actually
born by Jupiter itself, OK. And the outer moons like starting from 9th, they have a
pretty high inclinations and eccentricities, and starting from 16th,
they have retrograde orbits so they orbit in the opposite direction, OK.
So we get this picture, so they are probably either the brothers of Jupiter or
they are captured bodies, OK. Now if we're talking Velikovsky by the way I just wanna
note that maybe if Venus was actually born out of Jupiter maybe it was from the big
red spot where it was born, OK. But this is just a thought.
Now Saturn, the same story as with Jupiter but the Titan, of course, dominates the
whole system, and it has also a low inclination, low eccentricity so it
probably was born from Saturn, OK. And the first 24 moons, they too have low
inclination and low eccentricity, and the outer moons mostly have retrograde
orbits, high very inclined and eccentric orbits so they're probably either the
brothers of Saturn or
they were captured bodies. Now the same story with Uranus but the important
exception is that the equatorial plane of Uranus is very inclined. It's almost
perpendicular to the ecliptic so Mantashyan thinks that what happened is that
when Uranus
had its spin and magnetic field its orbit, I mean its spin access was inclined due
to some reason. I don't know what the reason might be, maybe a collision maybe
something else, and that's when it started to give birth to its satellites
that we observe today. Because the inclinations are relative the modern
equatorial plane, which is highly inclined, OK. So OK now what about Neptune,
we get this moon Triton which is really big and it moves in a highly inclined and
retrograde orbit. So under this theory probably was born out of the same
ejection so it's kind of a brother of Neptune. The other moons possess kind of the
same qualities that are for the other giant planets. Now important thing, Mars
and Earth, OK. Phobos and Deimos have little inclination and little
eccentricity so they were probably born out of Mars under this theory at least.
Of course there are other hypotheses. Now the Moon, what's interesting, it has a
relatively high inclination, high eccentricity so it couldn't have been
born out of the Earth probably. And it also has a lot of mass, it's more than one percent
of mass of the Earth and it is a unique case in in our system. And as Mr.
Thornhill noted yesterday, I think, that actually the Sun pulls the
Moon more than two times stronger than the Earth pulls the Moon. So actually the Moon is going
around the Sun, it's not orbiting the Earth. The Moon is sort of a sister
planet for the Earth and the orbit of the Moon you can see on the right
that's what the orbit of the Moon might look like as you might think but
I've crossed it out because this is wrong. The orbit of the Moon around the Sun is
elliptical, it never does these curls around the Earth, OK. Its elliptical. Of
course it has little waves because of the perturbations of the Earth but in general
it moves around the Sun not around Earth. So the Moon is a quasi-satellite of Earth. And this
is one of the pieces of evidence for for this theory, I think. You can Google
what a quasi-satellite means and compare this to this elliptical orbit around the Sun, OK.
So I'm close to the end. The points in favor of the proposed model is a relatively
high angular momentum that we can explain with this external field, the existence of the
ecliptic plane, the circularity of orbits due to the Lorentz force, the spin
characteristics of planets which are, this is a really interesting point and
so the red colored ones they actually cannot be explained
through only an accretion, OK. We have some,
we should have something something else to it. Of course, there are questions now,
where do these magnetic field go, how strong it was, where did the charges go,
whether they just whithered away because of the Sun or something else. There are a
lot of questions, I admit. And I think for example, if we suppose that the magnetic field
suddenly changed or even depolarized to the opposite, there might have been this
epic of instability and catastrophes because the Lorentz force would change and
the orbits would suddenly change and there might have been all of these
catastrophes with charge exchange and electric discharges and everything else.
So this is kind of a point where we can dock this into a more traditional
so-to-speak Electric Universe theories, OK. Now, if we look at the Sun in a galaxy
what we can see, this is what Mantashyan calls the Mathrushka model
or a Russian doll model you might call it, OK.
The idea is that the
the satellites were once embedded in planets and the planets were embedded in
the Sun and the Sun work was probably embedded in the galactic core or something so
it might have been ejected from the galactic core one day and the galactic
core might have been ejected from somewhere else like a super cluster core
and it all happened in the magnetic fields of larger and larger scale, OK.
So we get this really fractal structure of things, kind of evolving and
differentiating on smaller and smaller scale to get this Herbert Spencer type
evolution. And here
the Lorentz force plays the role of universal transformer of this linear
motion into circular rotation. And in my opinion, this is one of the explanations
for the ubiquitous character of the circular rotation in our universe.
Because in the gravitational field alone you would have an arbitrary eccentricity, you wouldn't
have exactly the circular orbits. We don't have exactly the circular orbits
but they are too frequent in my opinion to form by accident, OK.
So that, this is what I've promised to you in order to understand the Universe we
need to observe the work of both hands of the creator, the gravity and
electromagnetism. So if we focus on only one of those, we lose perspective and kind
of perceive the world with only one eye out of two that the nature gave us. So I
hope that it really explains the title of my talk because we should have this
linear gravitational attraction and this Lorentzian thing that gives us really all
those structures that we observe. OK, you were a beautiful audience thank you for
your patience, thank you for your attention.