planet formation planetary moons asteroids comets electric universe theory

Planetary formation in an Electric Universe

How are planets, moons, asteroids and active asteroids (comets) formed in Electric Universe theories?

Thunderbolts EU and plasma based cosmologies have very different models and chronology to the Nebular hypothesis. Objects perhaps rapidly accreted, pinched or expelled/discharged and other variations of our solar system’s formation. Perhaps in plasma stars, ionized gas giants, in the dusty plasmas of electromagnetic pinches or plasmoidal rings?

planet formation planetary moons asteroids comets electric universe theory

This video explains Thunderbolts EU theory suggests planetary systems. There is more on their own cosmonogy.

Below are a few alternatives to Big Bang theories of gravitation accretion constructs etc. There are others inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky’s cosmos without gravity, mythology and new chronology.

Solaria Binaria

Solaria Binaria by Alfred de Grazia and Earl R Milton in 1984 suggested our Sun was part of binary star systems and the planets creation came from electrical mechanisms.

common envelope evolution Aldred de Grazia

THE SOLAR SYSTEM AS A BINARY: Contrary to the hypothesis that the Solar System was born as and has evolved as a single star system, it is here claimed that the Solar System was and is a binary system.

The binary system was formed when the primitive Sun fissioned. Several planets were generated in the neck of the fissioning pair and co-revolved about the Sun synchronously with the companion.

The remaining planets were generated, one or more at a time, in several episodes, as the companion became unstable because of a changing galactic environment which we will discuss in Chapter Three.
Solaria Binaria | Alfred de Grazia and Earl R Milton (1984)

Grazia and Milton propose models of planets including Earth had common plenums and sacs (electromagnetic plasma spheres and filament tubes?) between these gas giants/stars.

Grazia’s Quantavolution is very early mythology based plasma cosmology, before Thunderbolts became a Project and is certainly not in their modern canon. Although Talbott, Wallace and others would have discussed this and maybe incorporated constructs from him.

Velikovsky/Ackerman Model

The V/A Scenario by John Ackerman seems to be more platery accretion based than dusty plasmas and z-pinches. It keeps to some parts of accepted physics but is still absolutely nothing like the Nebula Hypothesis in its timeframes but not as micro short as some EU theories.

God King Scenario: Mercury birthed Mars

To show how those interested in the Electric Universe and Immanuel Velikovsky can have very varied ideas, the same as mainstream science or any field of interest, the proponent of the intriguing God King Scenario suggests a literally way out there idea of a more violent birth for Mercury, from and as the core of Mars. Gary Gilligans’s ideas are plantary chaos and formation are based on the Velikovsky/Ackerman Model.

The Aten was originally the solid magnetic iron core of Mars. In a process involving electromagnetic forces involving Earth it was sucked out through the Valles Marineris (enormous scar on Mars) to become the planet Mercury. This almost incomprehensible event was first proposed by physicist and catastrophist J Ackerman … The iron planet Mercury now covered in a thin layer (relatively speaking) of rocky debris. Origin of this debris, blasted off Mars and battled up as recorded in the numerous but unverified pharaonic battles.
The Birth of Mercury and the Demise of Mars | God King Scenario

Thunderbolts EU theory of planets formation

planet formation rocky eu electric universe model theories velikovsky
The Thunderbolts version of the Electric Universe theory suggests that elements are being created or transmuted now by electromagnetic forces, especially by the plasma double layers. Not that most elements were created during the Big Bang and then by thermonuclear reactions in dying stars.

Thunderbolts combine a catastrophism geology with a plasma based cosmology of Birkeland currents, z-pinches, Marklund convection,electrical stresses of stars and lots of other electromagnetic processes may be where planets are created. Perhaps nearly instantly when birthed from a star or plasma gas giants?

It requires the expulsion, or “birth” of a fully formed proto-planet from the core of a star or gas giant … The physicist, Peter Warlow, made the colorful comment in 1982 that we assume that planets are formed outside stars “for the ‘obvious’ reason – that’s where we find them.” However, “We humans, equally ‘obviously,’ are outside our mothers – yet we did not start there!” It is far simpler and infinitely more efficient if planets are “born” at intervals by the electrical ejection of charged material from the similarly charged interiors of larger bodies – gas giants from stars, and rocky planets from gas giants. We have circumstantial evidence for such a proposal in the binary stars found after a nova outburst. Also most of the rocky bodies in the solar system closely orbit a gas giant. Electrical ejection in a massive internal lightning flash answers the question of the source of the energy. It is not dispersive like an explosion. The electromagnetic pinch effect will produce a jet of matter, rather like a coronal mass ejection, only on a much grander scale. The result is a proto-planet plus a stream of gases and meteoric debris.

… Falk’s report notes that extrasolar giant planets are too close to their stars to have formed there from a protoplanetary accretion disk. Rather than question the protoplanetary accretion disk model, the obvious proposal is to have the giant planets migrate after their formation elsewhere. However, it does not explain the orbital eccentricities. In our solar system, Uranus and Neptune are too far from the Sun to have formed where we find them. Why have our giant planets seemingly migrated outward and the extrasolar planets inward? When theoretical expectations fail scientists are required to re-examine all of the assumptions in their models. However, that is not done when some assumptions have become self-evident truths.

… A far simpler explanation is that gas giant planets are born by electrical expulsion from a star in a nova outburst. How else should we expect to find an extrasolar planet whipping around its parent in a few days or in an eccentric orbit? Eccentric orbits should be short-lived. They hint at recent events in those distant planetary systems; perhaps the birth of a new planet.
Planet Birthing | holoscience

plasma water elements accretion model electric universe theory planets formed origins

Just as stars are observed to do, gas giant planets may also expel a jet of matter during periods of electrical instability. Accretion of matter in the jet is mediated by the electromagnetic pinch effect and electrostatic deposition. Both of these mechanisms are far superior to accretion by impacts (tending to shatter and scatter instead of to accrete). Electrostatic deposition easily creates the layering seen in all rocky objects to date.
Cassini’s Homecoming | holoscience

In the process of growing in a galactic electromagnetic pinch, stars are prevented from becoming too massive by “budding off” other stars and gas giant planets. Some progeny remain to form binary or multiple star families. Others escape from their parent. All receive their share of energy from the galaxy. The most common stars in the galaxy are also the dimmest, the L-Type Brown Dwarfs. These stars have the “food” required for life present in their atmospheres. Such a dwarf star/gas giant may undergo a nova outburst to eject part of its core to form dense Earth-like planets and moons. If they remain close to the parent they may be enveloped within the “womb” of the stellar anode glow where it seems the principal conditions for life are present.
Other stars, other worlds, other life? | holoscience

Due to Marklund convection, stars have cores of heavy elements. Electric stars are not nuclear furnaces! They shine because they remain embedded in the galactic power grid. The decay of the z-pinch exposes the newborn star to a new electrical environment. The critical factor in the star’s stability is the current density at its photosphere. If it is excessive, the star may electrically “fission” into two or more pieces in order to expose a greater surface area and reduce the current density to a manageable level. Ejection of stellar matter produces a companion star or “gas giant.” That may explain the baffling number of multiple star systems and close-orbiting gas giant planets. Distantly orbiting gas giants, like those in our solar system are another story.

Dwarf stars are born in the same process, probably in larger numbers than the bright stars. They do not require to fission because their electrical stress is low, as evidenced by their light. They may form fewer multiple star systems by a different process—electrical capture—to be explained later.
Assembling the Solar System | holoscience

The possible birth of planet Venus

But Venus was also identified as a spectacular discharging comet in the ancient congregation of planets. What can be made of that? It can be explained if Venus was the latest child of Saturn. As explained earlier, Saturn shows the symptoms of having given birth recently. The birth would be triggered by a sudden change in Saturn’s electrical environment when it crossed from interstellar space into the Sun’s plasma envelope, or heliosphere. The voltage drop across the Sun’s plasma sheath would almost equal the full driving potential of the Sun, measured in tens of billions of volts. Rather than being an anode in the galactic discharge, Saturn would become a cathode in the Sun’s environment and subject to forming cathode jets. Saturn could be expected to ‘spit the dummy’ in such a circumstance! Venus was one such ‘dummy,’ ejected from the equator of Saturn. Saturn’s swift rotation delivered a ‘slap on baby’s bottom’ to Venus giving it a slow retrograde spin. The magnitude of the axial tilt of Venus to the ecliptic is much less than Saturn’s, which suggests that the Venusian orbit was tilted away from Saturn’s equatorial plane due to electrical capture forces acting on that dying star. We have abundant pictorial evidence that Venus was wrenched from its orbit in a polar direction shortly after it was born. (See the Egyptian “Eye of Ra” above).

This account explains many odd things about Venus; its slow retrograde spin; its hellish temperature, having being born recently from the core of a brown dwarf star; its thick atmosphere inherited from the brown dwarf and subsequently modified by cosmic discharges; and its equatorial scars caused by spectacular radial discharging, which was faithfully recorded by the petroglyph artists. Venus carried away significant charge from its parent so that it still has a ‘cometary’ magnetotail and its mountains glow with plasma discharges. Venus also shows a surprisingly young surface that gave rise to ad hoc theories of resurfacing events. They are unnecessary. Venus is a baby.
Cassini’s Homecoming | holoscience

Solar system formation

The formation of our solar system is where it gets interesting and controversial amongst those interested in an Electric Universe. There are a number of scenarios for the origin and configuration of the pre/proto/early solar system. The main thunderbolts EU theory has its own controversial Saturn Configuration.

EU based Solar system formations include:
Velikovsky / Ackerman Scenario | everythingselectric
Wandering star and brown dwarf | everythingselectric
wandering stars and planets? | everythingselectric
Saturn Polar Configuration | everythingselectric

Electric Universe theory of space bodies formation

The discovery of oxygen molecules from comet 67P has shown that standard science theory for cometary formation or solar nebular model formation has failed and will have to be seriously modified again.

Below are some quotes and links to Electric Universe sites about the formation theories of rocky planets, gas giants, asteroids etc (electric stars formation are investigated in another article). More information will be added as it is found. At the moment they nearly all seem to be from Wallace Thornhill so if you know of any more please comment below or contact with the details.

Asteroids and comets are not formed from this gravitational disk model of the formation of the solar system. So any examination of comets and asteroids is not going to tell us about the birth of the solar system, it may tell us something about the recent history of the solar system.

And that is simple because during the capture process, a star capturing a large body, a planet or a system of planets around another star, will cause chaotic rearrangement initially of all those bodies. And that chaos involves electrically interchange between those bodies.

And those cosmic thunderbolts are the very thing that rips material from the surface of a planets or even a sub stella body and hurls it into space to form debris of all sorts, ranging from dust through to meteoroids, comets and asteroids. And even, it could be said, new moons and planets.
Wal Thornhill – Astronomers Have No Idea How Planets Form | Thunderbolts Space news

Below is the 2 minute video of the above quote, or click on the quote link to watch the full 10 minute youtube video.

Comets and asteroids formation

But of course the Electric Universe relies on the information extracted from the mytho historical record to show that the solar system was quite different in our recent past, to say within 10 to 20 thousand years. And part of that chaotic motion in the solar system resulted in the electrical machining of bodies, particularly Mars. And the very fact that we still receive meteorites from Mars is an indication that this reconstruction of the recent history of the solar system is correct.
nebular formation model theory hypothesis electric universe theory
There were kilometres of material in depth removed from the northern hemisphere of Mars and aslo ripped from the giant electrical scar called Valles Marineris on Mars. So, the asteroids and comets are made up from planetary material.

It has always been recognised that asteroids show the features that are expected from matter which has been in differentiation and the processes on a larger planet. So the origin of asteroids from a planetary surface has been accepted for some time. But comets were supposed to be primordial leftovers. Neither comets nor asteroids are primordial.
Wal Thornhill – Ringed Asteroid Stuns Astronomers | Thunderbolts Space news

Satellite moons origins

The fact that [asteroid] Chariklo may have small moons, of course, has led to a further enforcement of a false idea that it may in turn lead to the formation of a small moon. In other words the dust and so on in the rings can coalesce to form a satellite. This has never been shown. In fact the collision between small particles only works up to a matter of a centimetre or so, before the collisions will tend to disintegrate those particles once again, so you can never form a solid moon from a ring of dust.
planet formation origins solar system venus earth mars EU theory
This theoretical formation of satellites from a ring of dust on a much larger scale is said to possibly explain the birth of our own moon in the early days of the solar system, as well as the origin of many of the other satellites around planets and asteroids.

This is harking back to the same old story which is centuries old now. If the satellites were formed in such a way you would expect a neat gradation in properties of those satellites. We dont find that. Each satellite of Jupiter and Saturn is so different that you wonder whether they were actually formed in the same way and from the same body.
Wal Thornhill – Ringed Asteroid Stuns Astronomers | Thunderbolts Space news

Titan’s recent electrical birth, possibly resulting from a double layer overload within Saturn, also explains its homogeneous core. Electric Universe theory proposes that the progeny of stars or planets are not all born at the same time as the parent. They are born hierarchically at intervals and are electromagnetically ejected, typically from within the parent.

If Titan was ejected from Saturn in a paroxysm, then its atmosphere and surface features are the results of that catastrophic event. Its interior could be electrically charged, either from a continuous circuit connection with Saturn or because it retains a remanent discharging current flow. Possibly both. The small effects on Cassini could be electrical in nature.

Perhaps “slushy core” and “rocky interior” are outdated ideas. Could the deep places inside planets and moons possess double layers? If that is the case, then “gravitational effects” on Cassini might be from Titan exerting an electric force on the spacecraft.
Enigmatic Colossus | Thunderbolts TPOD