[The Thunderbolts Project, Japan Division]公式ブログ Takaaki Fukatsu’s blog

[The Thunderbolts Project,Japan Division] エレクトリックユニバース  電気的宇宙論、プラズマ宇宙物理学、 電気的観察物理学、解説、翻訳、 深津 孝明

Comets Impact Cosmology  彗星は宇宙論に衝突する by Wal Thornhill

Comets Impact Cosmology 

by Wal Thornhill | July 20, 2004 1:35 pm

“Comets are important, they could be the key to the universe …maybe.”
– Burt Lancaster, in the movie Local Hero. 


 [Comet Hale-Bopp]

From Nature, 5, 174, December 28, 1871: 
ネイチャー、5、174、1871 年 12 月 28 日より:

“Encke’s Comet and the Supposed Resisting Medium,” by Professor W. Stanley Jevons.
W. スタンリー・ジェヴォンズ教授による「エンケ彗星と想定される抵抗媒体」。

“The observed regular diminution of period of Encke’s comet is still, I believe, an unexplained phenomenon for which it is necessary to invent a special hypothesis, a Deus ex machina, in the shape of an imaginary resisting medium.

…It is asserted by Mr. R. A. Proctor, Prof. Osborne Reynolds, and possibly others, that comets owe many of their peculiar phenomena to electric action.

… I merely point out that if the approach of a comet to the sun causes the development of electricity arising from the comet’s motion, a certain resistance is at once accounted for.”

From Scientific American, July 27, 1872: 
サイエンティフィック・アメリカン紙、1872 年 7 月 27 日より:

“Professor Zöllner, of Leipsic, in a lately published work on the nature of comets, makes it his purpose to explain the remarkable phenomena they present by an application of the established principles of physical science alone.

…The self-luminosity of comets he sets down to electrical excitement…

…the nuclei of comets, as masses, are subject to gravitation, while the vapors developed from them, which consist of very small particles, yield to the action of the free electricity of the sun.

…It is therefore sufficient to attribute to the sun an electrical energy no greater than that supposed to account satisfactorily for the appearances presented by cometic trains…”

From English Mechanic & World of Science, 11 Aug 1882, pp. 516-7: 
英国のメカニックと科学の世界、1882 年 8 月 11 日、516-7 ページより:

COMET’S TAILS”…There seems to be a rapidly growing feeling amongst physicists that both the self-light of comets and the phenomena of their tails belong to the order of electrical phenomena.” 

From Nature, No. 1370, Vol. 53, Jan 30, 1896, p. 306: 
ネイチャーより、No. 1370、Vol.  53、1896年1月30日、p.  306:

Theory of Comet’s Tails “It has long been imagined that the phenomenon of comet’s tails are in some way due to a solar electrical repulsion, and additional light is thrown on this subject by recent physical researches.
彗星の尾の理論 「彗星の尾の現象は何らかの形で太陽の電気的反発によるものであると長い間想像されてきましたが、最近の物理的研究によってこの主題にさらなる光が当てられています。

… Prof. Fessenden suggests that negatively charged particles are emitted from that side of a comet which is turned towards the sun…” (Astrophysical Journal, vol. iii. No. 1)
…フェッセンデン教授は、マイナスに帯電した粒子は太陽に向かって向いている彗星の側面から放出されると示唆しています…」 (天体物理学ジャーナル、vol. iii. No. 1)

〈Science at the end of the 19th century was closer to the truth about comets than we are now!〉

Astronomy throughout the ages has been dogged by beliefs about the universe that have dictated how facts are to be interpreted. 

〈Modern astronomy is crippled by the belief that although there is electricity in space, it doesn’t do anything.〉

At the end of the nineteenth century there was considerable interest in electricity and the phenomena of electric discharges in evacuated glass tubes.
19 世紀の終わりには、電気と、真空になったガラス管内の放電現象に大きな関心が集まりました。


 Here 15,000 volts DC is applied to electrodes at each end of a partially evacuated glass cylinder. Some of the complex phenomena of a glow discharge can be seen.

ここでは、部分的に真空になったガラスシリンダーの両端にある電極に 15,000 ボルトの DC が印加されます。 グロー放電の複雑な現象のいくつかが見られます。

Scientists of the day could see the many parallels between the behavior of the luminous comet and a laboratory glow discharge. 

But in the following decades they abandoned that vision

Electrified comets required an electrified Sun. 

Astronomers in the 20th century were never taught the physics of gas discharges, and the idea of electricity in space was anathema to them. 
20 世紀の天文学者はガス放電の物理学を教えられたことはなく、宇宙に電気が存在するという考えは彼らにとって忌まわしいものでした。

They turned their eyes away from the signs of electrical activity and adapted the older mechanical theories to explain comet behavior as buffetings in a solar “wind.” 

The gas discharge model was passed over for Fred Whipple’s ‘dirty ice ball’ model of comets.

In January this year I wrote about the initial reports coming from the closest flyby ever of a comet nucleus, that of Comet Wild 2[1]. 

Recently, the first scientific reports of that encounter were published. 

As anticipated, Comet Wild 2 provided more puzzling questions for astronomers while adding confirmation to the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® model.
予想通り、ワイルド 2 彗星は、エレクトリック・ユニバース® モデルに確証を与えると同時に、天文学者にさらに不可解な質問を提供しました。

〈On 18 June, Nature magazine printed a special section: ‘Stardust at Comet Wild 2.’〉

Anny-Chantal Levasseur-Regourd writes in ‘Cometary Dust Unveiled’ (p. 1762):
アニー・シャンタル・ルヴァスール・ルグールは、『明らかになった彗星の塵』(p. 1762) で次のように書いています:

“Cometary nuclei are unique objects that have preserved the primitive matter out of which the solar system was born. They are conglomerates of ice and dust….”
「彗星核は、太陽系誕生の原始物質を保存しているユニークな物体です。 それらは氷と塵の集合体だ……」


Although these statements are presented as fact, they are opinion … opinion that Comet Wild 2 defies. In fact, all of the recent discoveries about comets contradict the “gravity-dominated” consensus.
しかしながら、これらの声明は事実として提示されていますが、それらは意見…ワイルド 2 彗星が反抗する意見です。 実際、彗星に関する最近の発見はすべて、「重力が支配する」という共通認識に矛盾しています。

Harold Weaver, writes in Not a Rubble Pile? (p. 1760):
ハロルド・ウィーバーは『瓦礫の山ではない?』にこの様に書いている。  (p.1760):

“New in situ observations of a comet are demonstrating once again how little we understand about these dark and mysterious planetesimals. 

Just when a consensus was being reached that cometary nuclei are gravity-dominated ‘rubble piles,’ stunning images of the nucleus of Comet Wild 2 …are challenging that paradigm.”

Weaver refers to a new textbook, Comets II, from the U. of Arizona press. 
ウィーバーは、アリゾナ大学出版局の新しい教科書、「Comets II」について言及しています。

The continued use of textbooks that uncritically peddle the old consensus, when there is so much opposing evidence available, is a condemnation of science education.

“Astronomers as a class they hug caution and are as fearful of having their dogmas upset as a witch-doctor his magic.”
– Comyns Beaumont, The Mysterious Comet, 1932.
– カミンズ・ボーモント、謎の彗星、1932 年。

Again in the June 18th issue of Nature, Weaver asks:

“why was the surface so littered with features if sublimation was peeling off layers every time the nucleus passed through the inner solar system where its ices were heated by the Sun? …the implication is that the nucleus of Wild 2 has substantial strength and that gravity plays little role in the shaping of the features, which is contrary to the conventional wisdom that cometary nuclei are gravity-dominated rubble piles.”
「核が太陽によって氷が加熱される内部太陽系を通過するたびに昇華が層を剥がしていくのであれば、なぜ表面にはこれほど特徴が散らばっているのでしょうか?  …その意味するところは、ワイルド 2 の核にはかなりの強度があり、重力はその特徴の形成にほとんど役割を果たしていないということであり、これは彗星の核は重力に支配された瓦礫の山であるという従来の通念に反している。」
As usual, the pits and craters are ascribed to impacts, with no evidence whatsoever.
Weaver goes on:

“The rubble pile proponents can still point to the tidal disruption of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 during its close approach to Jupiter in 1993, and to the frequent and apparently spontaneous disruptions of many other cometary nuclei…”
「瓦礫の山の支持者たちは、1993 年に木星に接近した際のシューメーカー・レビー第 9 彗星の潮汐の乱れを今でも指摘することができます、そして、他の多くの彗星核の頻繁かつ明らかに自然発生的な破壊にも…」

That comets can be tidally disrupted is pure supposition.

 It is the most ineffectual model imaginable and fails to explain the suddenness and violence of the observed disruptions, or the fact that some occur far from the Sun. 

I wrote in January:

“Powerful internal stresses caused by redistribution of charge within an actively discharging comet are responsible for their observed tendency to fragment. The effect is like an exploding condenser. It is not due to the comet being a weakly coherent rubble pile.”
「活発に放電している彗星内の電荷の再分布によって引き起こされる強力な内部応力が、観測された彗星の断片化傾向の原因となっています。 コンデンサーが爆発するようなエフェクトです。 それは彗星が粘着性の弱い瓦礫の山であることが原因ではありません。」

Comet Wild 2 conforms to the electric model of comets, which sees them as complex planetary fragments instead of pristine primordial matter.
Referring to the three comets that have had their nucleus imaged by spacecraft, Halley, Borrelly and Wild 2, Weaver writes:

“The surfaces of all three nuclei appear to be mantled with non-volatile material, and the infamous activity of comets seems to be confined to very localized portions of the surface, or possibly, even subsurface geysers.”

The only reason for suggesting the comets are ‘mantled with non-volatile material’ is that the dirty ice ball model demands it. 

They are ‘the darkest objects in the solar system’ so, ipso facto, the bright ices must be hidden inside. 
Comet Wild 2 is supposed to have been diverted into its current orbit by Jupiter only 30 years ago so it is surprising that it seems to be as dark as comet Halley, which is thought to have passed through the inner solar system hundreds or thousands of times.
ワイルド2彗星は、わずか 30 年前に木星によって現在の軌道に変更されたと考えられているため、太陽系内部を数百回または数千回通過したと考えられているハレー彗星と同じくらい暗いように見えるのは驚くべきことです。

The dark mantle hypothesis is symptomatic of pathological science, where ad hoc adjustments are made to save a theory and the adjustments are not testable. 

The observation that comet Borrelly was ‘dry and hot’ can be regarded as evidence that comets do not have a mantle. 

Comet surface features and composition are indicative of their bulk composition. 

Electrical arcs burning the surface may explain their remarkable darkness. 

A similar effect can be seen on Io, where wandering cathode arcs similarly cause dark depressions, Io’s so-called ‘volcanic calderas’.

Weaver goes on:

“Detailed geometrical analyses of the jets have been used to identify the sources of activity on the nucleus, which is one of the outstanding unresolved issues in cometary science. 〉
「ジェットの詳細な幾何学的分析は、〈「彗星科学における未解決の未解決問題の 1 つである核の活動源を特定するために使用されています。〉

Surprisingly, the largest depressions on the surface of Wild 2 are apparently devoid of activity. …most of the jets apparently originate near the latitude of the subsolar point and nine of the jets appear to rise from two depressed regions on the surface.”
驚くべきことに、ワイルド 2 の表面にある最大のくぼみには明らかに活動がありません。  …ジェットのほとんどは明らかに亜太陽点の緯度付近で発生しており、ジェットのうちの 9 つは地表の 2 つの窪んだ領域から上昇しているように見えます。」

These are not surprises in the electrical model. Cathode arcs tend to strike from high points or sharp edges, in preference to flat surfaces. 
これらは電気モデルでは驚くべきことではありません。 陰極アークは、平坦な表面よりも高い点または鋭いエッジから発生する傾向があります。

They will tend to strike where the electric field is strongest, at the subsolar point. 
The depressions are caused by steep arc erosion of the crater edges. 

One of the research articles (p. 1764) states:
研究論文の 1 つ (p. 1764) には次のように述べられています:

“The flat floors [of the depressions, bounded by nearly vertical cliffs] seem to be inert at the present time and resistant to sublimation because none of them are detectably associated with observed jets.”

Later, (p. 1766) we find:
その後 (p. 1766)、我々は気付きました:

“…it is not clear why sublimation processes, driven by solar illumination on a spinning body, would form globally distributed circular structures.” 


There is only one process that will do that
 – electric arc machining!
それを行うプロセスは 1 つだけです
– 電気アーク加工!

The electrical model is more precise about where to look for the source of the observed jets. 

In January, I wrote:

“In the electric theory, unresolved bright spots are to be expected where the cathode arcs impinge on the nucleus and give rise to the cathode jets”

What do we find? 
On page 1768:
1768 ページ:

“The most significant albedo, or at least brightness, features are rare small bright spots that occur in multiple images at different phase angles …ruling out the possibility that it is a phase effect or image artifact. 

In stereoimages, it [a <50-m bright spot at the edge of a flat-floored depression] has no height. 
There is an adjacent shadow-like dark spot that could be the shadow of an optically thick jet… 
The bright spots are small and rare, suggesting that they may be short-lived.”
立体画像では、[平坦な床の窪地の端にある 50 m 未満の明るい点] には高さがありません。

Some of the jet sources are reported as tending “to coincide with the locations that are brighter than average.”


 [Left. The closest image of Comet Wild 2. ]
[左。 ワイルド2彗星の最も近い画像。]

The bright spot mentioned can be seen near the terminator in the 11.00 o'clock position. 
前述の明るい点は、11 時の位置のターミネーター付近に見られます。

Other bright spots can be seen at the edges of depressions. 

We are seeing the electric discharge machining (EDM) of the nucleus of Comet Wild 2 in progress. Right is a scanning electron microscope view of a surface that has been exposed to EDM in the lab. 
ワイルド 2 彗星の核の放電加工 (EDM) が進行中であることがわかります。 右は、実験室で EDM にさらされた表面の走査型電子顕微鏡写真です。

The same process is occurring constantly on Io where the cathode arcs were also seen to be eroding crater edges.


The spacecraft:

“…encountered regions of intense swarms of particles, together with bursts of activity corresponding to clouds of particles only a few hundreds of meters across. This fine scale structure can be explained by particle fragmentation.” (p. 1776).
「…直径わずか数百メートルの粒子雲に対応する活動の爆発とともに、激しい粒子の群れの領域に遭遇しました。 この微細スケールの構造は、粒子の断片化によって説明できます。」  (p.1776)。

Here we see another ad hoc explanation for a discovery that surprised the investigators. 

In the electric model, cathode jets carry electric current. 

The current generates a magnetic field that ‘pinches’ the jet and maintains its constriction over great distances. 

In January I wrote:

“Because they constitute an electric current, the [cathode] jet streams will remain separate and coherent over vast distances. 

Comet Hyakutake’s tail was detected by the Ulysses spacecraft half a billion kilometres away! 

Cometary filaments cannot be explained by outgassing. 

They are definitive evidence for the electrical nature of comets and the solar environment. 

The trajectory, velocity and filamentary nature of the comet’s ion tail conform to that known experimentally as a ‘plasma gun’.”

In short, we should expect the dust detection to occur in bursts with nothing in between the bursts. 

On page 1778, it is reported that:
1778 ページには次のように報告されています:

“The swarms consist of short bursts of impacts, a fraction of a second in duration. 

Some bursts are seen as single events of duration less than or equal to 0.1 s, surrounded by a relatively silent period lasting up to several seconds. 
一部のバーストは、最大数秒続く比較的静かな期間に囲まれた、持続時間 0.1 秒以下の単一イベントとして見られます。

Structure on such a short time scale (i.e., small physical scale in the coma) was unexpected and offers insight into the physical mechanisms at work in the coma.” 
このような短い時間スケール (つまり、コマ状態における小さな物理スケール) での構造は予想外であり、コマ状態で働いている物理的メカニズムについての洞察を提供します。」

It certainly does, provided you choose the right model. 

Unfortunately, astronomers choose a mechanical ‘three-dimensional fluid-dynamical coma model.’ 

This brings to mind the comment by an astronomer who has suffered for demonstrating the big bang theory is based on false assumptions:

“If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.”

The above-mentioned model fixes it so that the troublesome jets are not jets at all. 

They are:

“shocks resulting from nonradial gas flow and depend critically on the nucleus shape and topography (but do not require discrete active regions). 

This implies that the dust particles in the inner coma are also concentrated along the gas flow discontinuities, creating the visual impression of jets even though the dust may originate from different areas on the nucleus.”
The ingenuity of such nonsense is breathtaking. 

So how does one account for the short intense bursts of impacts with such a model? 
The paper continues airily:

“All can be explained by grain fragmentation. 
The very high level, but short duration, bursts are the result of the spacecraft passing through a compact cloud of fragmentation products.”

Nowhere are we told what might cause the mysterious delayed fragmentation, hundreds of kilometres from the comet nucleus

There is no visual evidence for it. 

It is another ad hoc notion to pile on top of all the others.

〈I repeat my opening question: 
How many failures of the ‘dirty ice ball’ theory does it take before it is falsified?〉
[The Electric Comet and its Impact on Cosmology] 

〈Comets are important, they are the key to the universe!〉

If comets are essentially an electrical phenomenon then the implications for cosmology are profound. 

It means that everything we believe about the Sun, and therefore all stars, is wrong. 

Rather than assuming the universe is electrically dead, it raises the possibility that Nature is at least as smart as we are and finds electrical energy extremely useful in creating and energizing the structures we see in space. 

Already the plasma cosmology section of the IEEE has published many papers on the natural formation of spiral galaxies by the interaction of intergalactic plasma current filaments, or ‘Birkeland currents.’ 
すでに、IEEE のプラズマ宇宙論部門は、銀河間プラズマ電流フィラメント、または「バークランド電流」の相互作用による渦巻銀河の自然形成に関する多くの論文を発表しています。

It does not require invisible matter or mysterious forces to produce the spiral patterns. 

Yet astronomers ignore the subject. 

Plasma cosmology has a beautiful symmetry with our everyday experience of electric power. 

Just as we light our cities with electric power generated hundreds or thousands of miles distant, so galaxies are lit by cosmic transmission lines that seem to extend beyond the visible universe.

Positive ions (protons) are accelerated from the Sun, which indicates that the Sun is positively charged. 

Yet the solar wind is electrically neutral (within the limits of our measurements, it contains equal numbers of positive ions and electrons), so how can a comet exhibit electrical effects?
しかし、太陽風は電気的に中性です (測定の範囲内では、同数の陽イオンと電子が含まれています)、では、彗星はどのようにして電気的影響を示すのでしょうか?

The answer, as always, is to go back to the proposed model to see how it fits with the data, or to see if the experiments performed so far can actually answer the question. 

In classic ‘Back to the Future’ style, Ralph Juergens proposed in the 1970’s that the Sun was the anode focus of a glow, or corona discharge. 
古典的な「バック・トゥ・ザ・フューチャー」スタイルで、ラルフ・ジョーガンス(=ヨーガンス=ユルゲンス)は 1970 年代に、太陽がグローまたはコロナ放電の陽極焦点であると提案しました。

It simply requires the Sun to be a body positively charged relative to its galactic environment. 

Welcome back to the nineteenth century!

Juergens wrote:

“Transmission lines carrying high-voltage direct current
 – electric trolley wires, for example – discharge almost continuously to the surrounding air
– 例えば、トロリー線など –

In the case of a positive (anode) wire electrons ever present in the Earth’s atmosphere drift toward the wire, attracted by its positive charge. 
プラス (アノード) ワイヤーの場合、地球の大気中に存在する電子は、そのプラス電荷に引き寄せられてワイヤーに向かってドリフトします。

As they penetrate the increasingly intense electric field close to the wire, the electrons gain energy from the field and are accelerated to energies great enough to initiate electron avalanches as they collide with and ionize air molecules. 

The avalanching electrons, in turn, intensify the ionization immediately surrounding the wire

Positive ions, formed in the process, drift away from the wire in the electric field. 

In this way, a more or less steady discharge is maintained, although there is no tangible object other than the surrounding air that can be considered a cathode.”
Electric Discharge As The Source Of Solar Radiant Energy, KRONOS Vol 8 No. 1, Fall 1982.
太陽放射エネルギーの源としての放電、KRONOS Vol 8 No. 1、1982 年秋。

In the second instalment (KRONOS Vol 8 No. 2.), Juergens wrote:
2 番目の記事 (KRONOS Vol 8 No. 2.) で、ジョーガンスは次のように書いています:

“the postulated discharge
 – though focused on a central solar anode – 
would appear to embrace a vast region of space, most of it devoted to cathode mechanisms. 
– 中央の太陽陽極に焦点を当てていますが –

The solar corona, and its extension through interplanetary space and beyond, finds an analog in the “negative glow” region of a glow discharge. 

The chromosphere we shall interpret as the inner limit of this negative glow. 

Only the photosphere, at the inner limit of the vast discharge cavity, will be assigned an anode function in this model.”


 [Diagram showing the important features of a glow discharge. ]
[グロー放電の重要な特徴を示す図。  ]

Note that in a spherically symmetrical corona discharge the cathode glows are absent because the energy is spread through a huge volume. 

On the other hand the anode, because of its small size relative to the entire heliosphere, is likely to be stressed and exhibit complex discharge phenomena to relieve that stress. 

The Sun exhibits the features of a stressed anode. 

Top diagram from J. D. Cobine, Gaseous Conductors, p. 213.
上の図は、J. D. Cobine、「ガス伝導体」、p. 5 より引用 213.
The ‘negative glow’ region can be seen to have a strong electric field. 

People objected to Juergens’ model because we don’t find relativistic electrons, accelerated by a strong radial field in interplanetary space, rushing toward the Sun. 

But plasma phenomena in a glow discharge are complex, so appeals to simplistic models based on electrostatics are irrelevant. 

Instead, I propose that Juergens’ model be modified and that interplanetary space is the extensive ‘positive column’ region of a glow discharge. 

Cobine writes, “The positive column is a region of almost equal concentrations of positive ions and electrons and is characterized by a very low voltage gradient.” 

This model, with planets orbiting within the anode discharge of a star, is of extreme importance when considering life on other planets[2].

The most important feature of the positive column region of a glow discharge is that the plasma is quasi-neutral. 

That is, sampling will reveal equal numbers of positive ions and electrons. 

And that is what we find in the solar ‘wind.’ 

It merely forms the conducting plasma medium between the cathode region at the heliospheric boundary and the anode region near the Sun. 

So looking for excess relativistic electrons rushing toward the Sun is no more sensible than looking at a current-carrying wire and asking where are all the excess electrons rushing from one end of the wire to the other.

The next most important feature of the positive column region of a spherical glow discharge is that throughout most of its volume the plasma maintains a weak but constant radial electric field. 

That field is what accelerates protons from the Sun to produce the solar ‘wind’ and it assists the drift of electrons to the Sun. 

That field also creates a mystery for astrophysicists in their discovery of the small but constant radial deceleration of spacecraft that are moving in the solar plasma. 

The discovery of that deceleration was a striking confirmation of this glow discharge model of the Sun. See ‘Mystery Solved[3].’
その減速の発見は、太陽のグロー放電モデルの驚くべき裏付けとなった。  「謎は解決しました[3]」を参照してください。

Having described the solar electrical environment we can go on to answer the question posed earlier: 
“How can a comet exhibit electrical effects?” 

A comet’s tail arises from the interaction between the electric charge of the comet and the solar discharge plasma. 

The comet spends most of its time far from the Sun, where the plasma charge density and voltage with respect to the Sun is low. 

The comet moves slowly and it easily accumulates enough charge to balance the ambient voltage.

As the comet approaches the Sun, the nucleus moves at a furious speed through regions of increasing charge density and voltage. 

The comet’s surface charge and internal polarization, developed in deep space, respond to the new environment by forming cathode jets and a visible plasma sheath, or coma. 

The strong electric field in the comet’s plasma sheath generates x-rays. 
彗星のプラズマ・シース(さや)内の強い電場によって X 線が発生します。

The cathode discharge hot spots characteristically jump about the nucleus, and the comet may shed and grow new tails. 

Or the comet may explode like an overstressed capacitor, breaking into separate fragments or simply giving up the ghost and disappearing. 

The ‘non-gravitational’ forces observed perturbing comet orbits are simply due to these electrical interactions.

None of these phenomena were expected from an inert object. 

The dirty ice ball model was never tenable and has been discredited. 

It has profound implications for theories of the origin of the solar system and cosmology.

Wal Thornhill

1.    Comet Wild 2: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ayxpdjcb
2.    life on other planets: http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_other.htm
3.    Mystery Solved: http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html
Source URL: https://www.holoscience.com/wp/comets-impact-cosmology/
Copyright ©2023 holoscience.com | The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® unless otherwise noted.