Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00166)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "arielaretziel" 
<arielaretziel@y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> I personally see nothing wrong with people studying the Cosmic 
Fire. Just 
> please don't keep harping that it's a continuation of the Secret 
Doctrine.

Huh? I didn't say it was, reread below. I said that AAB continued 
the psychic WORK of HPB, that's a different matter than saying that 
this book specifically was a continuation of the SD. In fact I said 
I had never even read the damn book before I read TonCF. 

Even DK said that HPB was his first amenuesis and AAB the next one. 
HPB said it first though.

=
> That 
> might be the case for YOU, but for me it is a real STEP DOWN. 


I don't recall asking your judgement on something I did not say.


And perhaps =
> 
> that's the way Wisdom is, that poeple gain from different books 
and therefo=
> re 
> we can't argue either way. 

Huh?

Netemara
> 
> A^A^
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "netemara888" 
<netemara888@y...> 
> wrote:
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@a... wrote:
> > > Hey Netamara, I'm happy to hear that you understand whatever I 
was 
> > talking 
> > > about, But, what makes you think anyone else in this forum 
is as 
> > wise as you, 
> > 
> > Is this a compliment OR are you asking me a question here? I 
don't 
> > claim to be wise, or intelligent in the Aryan sense, just a 
knower.
> > 
> > > and doesn't need a bit of scientific background before getting 
an 
> > alternative 
> > > scientific view of Cosmogenesis that makes some theosophical 
sense?
> > 
> > I am saying I had no scientific background, but after studying 
> > spirituality I was ABLE to better understand physics. That's 
what I 
> > am saying. Did you understand it that way?
> > 
> > 
> > As for 
> > > the treatise on Cosmic Fire, what makes you so sure it was 
blessed 
> > by HPB?
> > 
> > HPB said that someone would come who would continue what she 
> > started. I believe she was talking about AAB. There was a 
connection 
> > between she and AAB on a psychic level as well.
> > 
> > I've 
> > > read it, too, and it didn't tell me anything I couldn't figure 
out 
> > for myself 
> > > by studying the Secret Doctrine
> > 
> > I did not read the SD beforehand--nor refer to it. I understood 
TOCM 
> > without reading the SD. I have only recently spent some time 
reading 
> > the SD's. I spent far more time reading AAB. I read only the 
> > historical accounts of the TS, and was never interested in their 
> > books until later when I was making a study of them in terms of 
> > their past lives coming and going.
> > 
> > and all the references to esoteric 
> > > metaphysical material she included -- from the I-Ching, 
through 
> > Hermes, pythagorus, and 
> > > Paracelsus, to the kabbala (the entire list would be too long 
to 
> > put in here) 
> > > in addition to some direct teachings from living masters of 
both 
> > science and 
> > > metaphysics -- one of whom was my father, an alchemist, 
kabbalist 
> > and 33rd 
> > > degree Mason who taught me to question and search out the real 
> > meaning of 
> > > everything I read, and accept no "Bibles" (like HPB also 
advised).
> > 
> > You know there are some sayings that just don't die hard. I also 
put 
> > Bible in quotes. It is an expression which means that I refered 
to 
> > it many many times. That is what makes it a "Bible" to me, 
nothing 
> > more.
> > 
> > I also find it to be a blueprint for initiations which go beyond 
the 
> > 5th. That is also the Bible meaning for me, it is spiritual.
> > 
> > And, what came out 
> > > of it all was much clearer, and made more sense than all the 
> > convoluted 
> > > writings of AAB. (Although, admitteedly, I did get a few 
tidbits 
> > from DK hidden in 
> > > the doubletalk.) But, if that's your "Bible," and it gave you 
all 
> > the 
> > > scientific, metaphysical and philosophical truth you need, 
then 
> > who am I to argue 
> > > against that? :-) 
> > > 
> > > Leonardo     
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Netemara
> > 
> > > 
> > > In a message dated 01/09/04 10:36:02 PM, netemara888@y... 
writes:
> > > 
> > > >Helloooooooo yourself. Why are you reinventing the wheel 
here? 
> > The 
> > > >other seminal tome which was dedicated to HPB (which is my 
Bible) 
> > > >is "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" which deals with electrical 
fire 
> > and 
> > > >all the rest. I've been studying it for 35 years as well, 
long 
> > > >before I had a scientific background because it was the same 
as 
> > the 
> > > >Indian Philosophies, and hell I understood those. So I took 
what 
> > I 
> > > >did understand and applied it to what I did not (there's a 
> > definite 
> > > >name for that but it escapes me now) and voila, I know as 
much 
> > about 
> > > >physics, in the theoretical sense as any physicist, and can 
> > listen 
> > > >to any lecture on the subject.
> > > >
> > > >However, AAB took the SD and parlayed it into The Cosmic Fire 
> > > >Treatise with HPB's blessings. What say you about this Leon?
> > > >
> > > >Netemara
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@a... wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hello everyone,
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > Referring to the HPB quote and the article below:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > How about that? Looks like they are almost getting close to 
my 
> > ABC theory 
> > > 
> > > > (which was almost presaged by HPB and pretty much consistent 
> > with 
> > > 
> > > > everything she taught). 
> > > 
> > > >    
> > > 
> > > > But they still haven't figured out how all those electrical 
> > fields come 
> > > into 
> > > 
> > > > being. Or, more importantly, how they relate to 
consciousness 
> > and give 
> > > rise 
> > > 
> > > > to mind, memory -- and brains (not to mention, bodies:-)?  
Be 
> > nice if the 
> > > 
> > > > cosmologists and string theorists get together... (And then 
ask 
> > me [or HPB] 
> > > 
> > > > to fill in the links to the missing zero-points of pure 
> > consciousness 
> > > 
> > > > between the em fields and the strings.:-)  
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > In any event, the "Big Bang" may still be a viable concept --
so 
> > long as we 
> > > 
> > > > realize it may just be the apparently singular instant at 
the 
> > beginning of 
> > > (our 
> > > 
> > > > sidereal) time when the universe fell into matter and 
changed 
> > from its 
> > > 
> > > > spiritual (noumenal) to its physical (phenomenal) state.  
(Of 
> > course, in 
> > > 
> > > > Cosmic time, since it also had to evolve through the mental 
and 
> > astral 
> > > planes, 
> > > 
> > > > that may have taken ages.) Before that sudden appearance in 
our 
> > sidereal 
> > > 
> > > > space-time level, the numbers, spatial directions, 
frequencies, 
> > and time 
> > > 
> > > > relationships used for scientific measurement in our visible 
> > metric 
> > > universe, 
> > > 
> > > > would have no reality.  
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > So, as far as science is concerned, that's where everything 
> > appeared to 
> > > begin 
> > > 
> > > > -- all at once. Because of that, somebody, said it seems 
like 
> > an 
> > > explosion, 
> > > 
> > > > so they gave it the name "Big Bang," and it stuck. But, 
then, a 
> > lightning 
> > > 
> > > > bolt seems like an explosion to us, and that's an electrical 
> > effect, too, 
> > > that 
> > > 
> > > > has a finite velocity of propagation. Between those last 
two 
> > states is 
> > > where 
> > > 
> > > > modern science (that tries to imagine the whole by examining 
all 
> > the parts 
> > > 
> > > > and figuring how they interrelate) gets lost in space. 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > One problem, besides getting hooked on the particles as 
being 
> > fundamental 
> > > 
> > > > (rather than the wave) is that they don't yet fully 
understand 
> > the 
> > > fundamental 
> > > 
> > > > electrical nature of the material universe that must 
originate 
> > in the 
> > > abstract 
> > > 
> > > > motion (superspin or spinergy) of the nonmaterial energy 
source 
> > behind 
> > > their 
> > > 
> > > > "Big Bang." And, that spin must lead to cycles, and cycles 
lead 
> > to waves, 
> > > and 
> > > 
> > > > waves have to flow like electricity and obey all the same 
laws 
> > of 
> > > 
> > > > electrodynamics such as voltage (pressure), amperage 
(volume), 
> > resistance, 
> > > 
> > > > capacitance, inductance, phase, resonance, harmonics, etc., 
as 
> > well as 
> > > 
> > > > generate wave fronts that act as particles that smash into 
> > things. 
> > > 
> > > > (Incidentally, these laws are analogously similar to all the 
> > laws of 
> > > > hydrodynamics.)             
> > > 
> > > >     
> > > 
> > > > Another problem is that the parts keep shifting around 
trying to 
> > get back 
> > > to 
> > > 
> > > > that superspin or spinergy (the root of electricity, cycles 
and 
> > > periodicity) 
> > > 
> > > > they came from. (All fundamental electrical forces, 
including 
> > gravity, can 
> > > be 
> > > 
> > > > both attractive and repulsive depending on the polarity.)  
So, 
> > when science 
> > > 
> > > > gets down to observing the smallest parts (quantum 
particles), 
> > they change 
> > > 
> > > > their motion (energy level) and, consequently, their 
position 
> > just by 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > looking at them. Quantum physics thinks that's because 
these 
> > properties 
> > > are 
> > > 
> > > > indeterminate and subject to statistical probability laws.  
> > (But, maybe, 
> > > those 
> > > 
> > > > mites know what they are doing. :-)  
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > Actually, these apparent effects may be because we can only 
> > observe 
> > > 
> > > > something by reflection. And that means sending out a ray 
of 
> > > electromagnetic 
> > > 
> > > > energy (light, electrons, x-rays or otherwise) to bounce off 
the 
> > object.  
> > > 
> > > > When that energetic corpuscle or "inquiray" (sic) wave front 
has 
> > the same 
> > > 
> > > > energy as the small particle (which is also an electrical 
wave 
> > front) the 
> > > 
> > > > particle reacts by moving backward and/or changing its 
direction 
> > of spin -- 
> > > > like a billiard ball when tapped with the cue stick.  
(Since, 
> > from a 
> > > theosophical 
> > > 
> > > > opoint of view, the bserver's consciousness, or consciously 
> > directed will 
> > > or 
> > > 
> > > > intent which must be a projection of minute energy, can 
> > interfere with the 
> > > 
> > > > consciousness aspect of the quantum particle -- could this 
be a 
> > partial 
> > > 
> > > > explanation of the mechanisms behind some forms of psychic 
> > phenomena?)  
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > So, when we try to locate the position of an electron, we 
can't 
> > determine 
> > > its 
> > > 
> > > > momentum, and when we try to measure its momentum, we can't 
> > determine 
> > > 
> > > > its position. But, to the scientist, that can only mean 
that 
> > the universe 
> > > is 
> > > 
> > > > governed by probability laws... When, actually, it is 
governed 
> > by the 
> > > 
> > > > informational wave patterns of electrical energy carried by 
the 
> > invisible 
> > > 
> > > > hyperspace fields that exist in the apparently empty space 
> > between the zero-
> > > 
> > > > point and the quantum particle. Science labels this space, 
the 
> > Planck 
> > > distance, 
> > > 
> > > > and fills it with perturbations or "Cosmic foam" of 
> > the "vacuum" -- without 
> > > r
> > > 
> > > > eally knowing what they are talking about. Although, they 
know 
> > from 
> > > 
> > > > Einstein's theory of relativity, that the closer you get to 
the 
> > zero-point 
> > > the 
> > > >greater the energy, until at the zero-point, it approaches 
> > infinity 
> > > 
> > > > (by our measurements). Of course, this completely 
> > > 
> > > > violates all the rules of quantum physics, since its 
mathematics 
> > > 
> > > > can only deal with finite particles having finite energies.  
So, 
> > what to 
> > > do?  
> > > 
> > > > Science needs a new paradigm that can bring these two 
theories 
> > into 
> > > 
> > > > conformance with each other. Well, that's what string 
physics 
> > is all 
> > > about.   
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > So, the more advanced Superstring/M-brane theorists are 
> > beginning 
> > > 
> > > > to see that these vibrational patterns on the one 
dimensional 
> > ray of energy 
> > > 
> > > > ("superstring") that composes the surface ("M-brane") of the 
> > adjacent 
> > > 
> > > > zero-point hyperspace fields (theosophically, the Astral 
realms 
> > linked to 
> > > > the mental realms), are what determine the vibrational 
nature of 
> > the 2-
> > > 
> > > > dimensional "strings" that compose the quarks and gluons 
that 
> > make up 
> > > > the 3-dimensional quantum particles.  
> > > 
> > > > From there on, electrodynamics takes over and determines the 
> > nature of the 
> > > 
> > > > atoms and molecules, and eventually, all the beings in the 
> > universe -- 
> > > 
> > > > from viruses to stars, quasars and black holes. A process --
 
> > starting from 
> > > 
> > > > ezero, and nding up with our space time continuum -- that is 
as 
> > simple as 
> > > 
> > > > ABC. (That is, if you look at it simultaneously from both 
the 
> > inside out 
> > > > AND the outside in.)  
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > And, it will become so simple when these scientists begin to 
> > understand 
> > > 
> > > > how zero-point consciousness (awareness and will) is 
> > physiologically, 
> > > 
> > > > chemically, neurological, and psychologically linked to all 
> > those material 
> > > 
> > > > entities through their coenergetic hyperspace electrical 
> > fields.  
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > Thus, such a new paradigm will eventually -- by tying 
together 
> > and 
> > > 
> > > > correlating holographic information theory with 
Superstring/M-
> > brane physics 
> > > 
> > > >and its hyperspace fields (matter) married to consciousness 
> > (spirit) which, 
> > > 
> > > > together, originate simultaneously at the cosmic field's 
zero-
> > laya-point 
> > > 
> > > > center -- give us a Unified Field Theory of Everything.  
> > Incidentally, that 
> > > is  
> > > 
> > > > what the theosophical and scientifically metaphysical theory 
of 
> > ABC has 
> > > 
> > > > already done... Although, conventional science, steeped in 
its 
> > > materialistic 
> > > 
> > > > biases, is not yet ready to fully comprehend or accept it.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > But, when they do, which, as HPB predicted, is inevitable, 
> > theosophy will 
> > > 
> > > > no longer stand outside of established science, but will 
merge 
> > with it.  
> > > And, 
> > > 
> > > > from then on, no one will be able to refute the reality of 
both 
> > karma and 
> > > 
> > > > reincarnation and the unity of all beings, along with the 
moral-
> > ethical 
> > > 
> > > > responsibilities to each other that they imply. 
> > > 
> > > >     
> > > 
> > > > But, didn't we theosophists already know that everything in 
the 
> > universe is 
> > > 
> > > > conscious -- to one degree of expression or another -- and, 
that 
> > > > consciousness is eternal?  
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > How could that not be -- since the zero-point center of the 
> > universe is 
> > > 
> > > > everywhere, while it's circumference, being the continuous 
> > interconnected 
> > > 
> > > > surfaces (or M-branes) of all the coadunate but not 
> > consubstantial and 
> > > 
> > > > multidimensional hyperspace electrical fields, is nowhere?  
And, 
> > further, 
> > > > while the fields are forever changing, the zero-point (that 
is 
> > their 
> > > origin) 
> > > >can never change its essential "beness," or potential being. 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > To visualize (by using our imagination focussed meditatively 
in 
> > the higher 
> > > 
> > > > mind) how these fields at the primal beginning are, (1) 
derived 
> > out of a 
> > > 
> > > > centralized zero (Laya) point of infinite spinergy, (2) 
> > coenergetically 
> > > 
> > > > interrelated with each other in their spiral involution's, 
(3) 
> > have no 
> > > 
> > > > beginning or end (like a snake with its tail in its mouth), 
(4) 
> > follow a 
> > > >continuous spiral vortical path that has no separate inside 
or 
> > outside 
> > > (like a 
> > > 
> > > > Mobius strip or Klein bottle), and (5) simulates the 
analogous 
> > paths as 
> > > well 
> > > > as the topological molecular code of the eventual DNA 
molecule --
> >  
> > > 
> > > > to finally form 14 inner spherical 
> > > 
> > > > fields within the outer ring-pass-not field (in accord with 
the 
> > formula in 
> > > the 
> > > 
> > > > Book of Dzyan, "The 3, the 1, the 4, the 1, the 5, the twice 
7, 
> > the sum 
> > > total," 
> > > 
> > > > and the ancient concept, "As above so below") -- see the 
> > following web 
> > > sites:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > 
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.h
> > tml
> > > 
> > > > http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/invlutionflddiagnotate.gif
> > > 
> > > > http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Invlutionfldmirror2.gif
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > [Note that these diagrams are only symbolic, since they try 
to 
> > describe a 
> > > 
> > > > multidimensional reality in only 2-dimensions. So, don't 
get 
> > caught in the 
> > > 
> > > > linear diagrams, themselves, but visualize the "fields of 
> > consciousness" as 
> > > 
> > > > transparent spheres within spheres within spheres, etc., 
with 
> > the lines of 
> > > 
> > > > force wound around their surfaces and through all their zero-
> > point 
> > > 
> > > > centers and tangent points in intertwining spirals, like 
balls 
> > of yarn -- 
> > > > with all their beginnings and ends tied together.]
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > Lenny
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > For an overall picture of the ABC concept, see"
> > > 
> > > > http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > In a message dated 01/06/04 9:56:23 AM, ultinla@j... writes:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > >â Å"Water,â and the â Å"water of lifeâ are all, on 
our 
> > plane, 
> > > 
> > > the progeny; or
> > > 
> > > > >as a modern physicist would say, the correlations of 
> > > 
> > > ELECTRICITY. Mighty
> > > 
> > > > >word, and a still mightier symbol! Sacred generator of a 
no 
> > less 
> > > 
> > > sacred
> > > 
> > > > >progeny; of fire â " the creator, the preserver and the 
> > > 
> > > destroyer; of light
> > > 
> > > > >â " the essence of our divine ancestors; of flameâ "the 
Soul 
> > of 
> > > 
> > > things. 
> > > 
> > > > >Electricity, the ONE Life at the upper rung of Being, and 
> > Astral 
> > > 
> > > Fluid,
> > > 
> > > > >the Athanor of the Alchemists, at its lowest; GOD and 
DEVIL, 
> > GOOD 
> > > 
> > > and
> > > 
> > > > >EVIL. â " SD I, 81
> > > 
> > > > >
> > > 
> > > > >================================================
> > > 
> > > > >
> > > 
> > > > >There is a revolution just beginning in astronomy/cosmology 
> > that 
> > > 
> > > will
> > > 
> > > > >rival the one set off by Copernicus and Galileo. This 
> > revolution 
> > > 
> > > is
> > > 
> > > > >based on the growing realization that the cosmos is highly 
> > > 
> > > electrical in
> > > 
> > > > >nature. It is becoming clear that 99% of the universe is 
made 
> > up 
> > > 
> > > not of
> > > 
> > > > >"invisible matter", but rather, of matter in the plasma 
state. 
> > > 
> > > > >Electrodynamic forces in electric plasmas are much stronger 
> > than 
> > > 
> > > the
> > > 
> > > > >gravitational force. 
> > > 
> > > > > Mainstream astrophysicists are continually â 
> > Å"surprisedâ by 
> > > 
> > > new data
> > > 
> > > > >sent back by space probes and orbiting telescopes. New 
> > > 
> > > information
> > > 
> > > > >always sends theoretical astrophysicists "back to the 
drawing 
> > > 
> > > board". 
> > > 
> > > > >In light of this, it is curious that they have such "cock-
sure" 
> > > 
> > > attitudes
> > > 
> > > > >about the infallibility of their present models. Those 
models 
> > > 
> > > seem to
> > > 
> > > > >require major "patching up" every time a new space probe 
sends 
> > > 
> > > back data.
> > > 
> > > > > Astrophysicists and astronomers do not study 
experimental 
> > > 
> > > plasma
> > > 
> > > > >dynamics in graduate school. They rarely take any courses 
in
> > > 
> > > > >electrodynamic field theory, and thus they try to explain 
every 
> > > 
> > > new
> > > 
> > > > >discovery via gravity, magnetism, and fluid dynamics which 
is 
> > all 
> > > 
> > > they
> > > 
> > > > >understand. It is no wonder they cannot understand that 
99% of 
> > > 
> > > all
> > > 
> > > > >cosmic phenomena are due to plasma dynamics and not to 
gravity 
> > > 
> > > alone. 
> > > 
> > > > > When confronted by observations that cast doubt on the 
> > > 
> > > validity of
> > > 
> > > > >their theories, astrophysicistss have conjured up pseudo-
> > > 
> > > scientific
> > > 
> > > > >invisible entities such as neutron stars, weakly 
interacting 
> > > 
> > > massive
> > > 
> > > > >particles, strange energy, and black holes. When 
confronted by 
> > > 
> > > solid
> > > 
> > > > >evidence such as Halton Arp's photographs that contradict 
the 
> > Big 
> > > 
> > > Bang
> > > 
> > > > >Theory, their response is to refuse him access to any major 
> > > 
> > > telescope in
> > > 
> > > > >the U.S. 
> > > 
> > > > > Instead of wasting time in a futile battle trying to 
> > convince
> > > 
> > > > >entrenched mainstream astronomers to seriously investigate 
the
> > > 
> > > > >Electric/Plasma Universe ideas, a growing band of plasma 
> > > 
> > > scientists and
> > > 
> > > > >engineers are simply bypassing them. A new electric plasma-
> > based
> > > 
> > > > >paradigm that does not find new discoveries to be â 
> > Å"enigmatic and
> > > 
> > > > >puzzlingâ , but rather to be predictable and consistent 
with 
> > an 
> > > 
> > > electrical
> > > 
> > > > >point of view, is slowly but surely replacing the old 
paradigm 
> > > 
> > > wherein
> > > 
> > > > >all electrical mechanisms are ignored. 
> > > 
> > > > > An electrical "plasma" is a cloud of ions and electrons 
> > that, 
> > > 
> > > under the
> > > 
> > > > >excitation of applied electrical and magnetic fields, can 
> > > 
> > > sometimes light
> > > 
> > > > >up and behave in some unusual ways. The most familiar 
examples 
> > of
> > > 
> > > > >electrical plasmas are the neon sign, lightning, and the 
> > electric 
> > > 
> > > arc
> > > 
> > > > >welding machine. The ionosphere of Earth is an example of 
a 
> > > 
> > > plasma that
> > > 
> > > > >does not emit visible light. Plasma permeates the space 
that 
> > > 
> > > contains
> > > 
> > > > >our solar system. The cloud of particles that constitutes 
the 
> > > 
> > > solar
> > > 
> > > > >"wind" is a plasma. Our entire "Milky Way" galaxy consists 
> > > 
> > > mainly of
> > > 
> > > > >plasma. In fact 99% of the entire universe is plasma! 
> > > 
> > > > >History
> > > 
> > > > > During the late 1800's in Norway, physicist Kristian 
> > > 
> > > Birkeland explained
> > > 
> > > > >that the reason we could see the auroras was that they were 
> > > 
> > > plasmas. 
> > > 
> > > > >Birkeland also discovered the twisted corkscrew shaped 
paths 
> > > 
> > > taken by
> > > 
> > > > >electric currents when they exist in plasmas. Sometimes 
those 
> > > 
> > > twisted
> > > 
> > > > >shapes are visible and sometimes not - it depends on the 
> > strength 
> > > 
> > > of the
> > > 
> > > > >current density being carried by the plasma. Today these 
> > streams 
> > > 
> > > of ions
> > > 
> > > > >and electrons are called "Birkeland Currents". The 
> > > 
> > > mysterious "sprites",
> > > 
> > > > >"elves", and "blue jets" associated with electrical storms 
on 
> > > 
> > > Earth are
> > > 
> > > > >examples of Birkeland currents in the plasma of our upper 
> > > 
> > > atmosphere.
> > > 
> > > > >In the early 20th century, Nobel laureat Irving Langmuir 
> > studied 
> > > 
> > > electric
> > > 
> > > > >plasmas in his laboratory at General Electric; he further 
> > > 
> > > developed the
> > > 
> > > > >body of knowledge Birkeland had initiated. In fact it was 
he 
> > who 
> > > 
> > > first
> > > 
> > > > >used the name "plasma" to describe the almost lifelike, 
self-
> > > 
> > > organizing
> > > 
> > > > >behavior of these ionized gas clouds in the presence of 
> > electrical
> > > 
> > > > >currents and magnetic fields. 
> > > 
> > > > >Basic Properties
> > > 
> > > > >Modes of Operation
> > > 
> > > > > T Currents in Cosmic Sized Plasmas
> > > 
> > > > >Because plasmas are good (but not perfect) conductors, they 
are
> > > 
> > > > >equivalent to wires in their ability to carry electrical 
> > > 
> > > current. It is
> > > 
> > > > >well known that if any conductor cuts through a magnetic 
field, 
> > a 
> > > 
> > > current
> > > 
> > > > >will be caused to flow in that conductor. This is how 
electric
> > > 
> > > > >generators and alternators work. Therefore, if there is 
any 
> > > 
> > > relative
> > > 
> > > > >motion between a cosmic plasma, say in the arm of a galaxy, 
and 
> > a
> > > 
> > > > >magnetic field in that same location, Birkeland currents 
will 
> > > 
> > > flow in the
> > > 
> > > > >plasma. These currents will, in turn, produce their own 
> > magnetic 
> > > 
> > > fields.
> > > 
> > > > >
> > > 
> > > > >Plasma phenomena are scalable. That is to say, their 
electrical 
> > > 
> > > and
> > > 
> > > > >physical properties remain the same, independent of the 
size of 
> > > 
> > > the
> > > 
> > > > >plasma. Of course dynamic phenomena take much less time to 
> > occur 
> > > 
> > > in a
> > > 
> > > > >small laboratory plasma than they do in a plasma the size, 
say, 
> > > 
> > > of a
> > > 
> > > > >galaxy. But the phenomena are identical in that they obey 
the 
> > > 
> > > same laws
> > > 
> > > > >of physics. So we can make accurate models of cosmic sized 
> > > 
> > > plasmas in
> > > 
> > > > >the lab - and generate effects exactly like those seen in 
> > space.  
> > > 
> > > In
> > > 
> > > > >fact, electric currents, flowing in plasmas, have been 
shown to 
> > > 
> > > produce
> > > 
> > > > >most of the observed astronomical phenomena that are 
> > inexplicable 
> > > 
> > > if we
> > > 
> > > > >assume that the only forces at work in the cosmos are 
magnetism 
> > > 
> > > and
> > > 
> > > > >gravity. 
> > > 
> > > > >
> > > 
> > > > > ====================
> > > 
> > > > >
> > > 
> > > > >If this is true the current cosmological speculations --- 
not 
> > > 
> > > just the
> > > 
> > > > >big bang, but many others related theories go into the 
trash 
> > > 
> > > can. What
> > > 
> > > > >does the group think???
> > > 
> > > > >jw
> > > 
> > > > >