Session 1 November 2025

[mantle]

Dire is also the state of mind of those owners of that magazine. How could it be otherwise , when their tanks and armies are obsolete and Russia is in the second generation of hypersonic. And yet they still believe that they are in control when Amerika , barely rattling in the game, has lost the arms race and when The Bankers know their fiat money is already in shambles. Who also know , though most of us do not , why so many needles and syringes predominate for their year 2026 , because most of us are infected . AI has redefined the human at the molecular level and hacked our bodies and our minds. Little wonder our plaNET is... only a football to be kicked about.

 

[gottathink]

Well the jury is out on Sir Francis Bacon. Was he a force for good (STO) or an agent, whether witting or unwitting, for STS forces. You tell me.

I am starting to think that every Thing in our world is necessarily STS. Because that’s the deal, we got our world, they got the control. Pertaining to Francis Bacon—all inspired (or directed) scientific and technological advancements have been to support the growth of our civilisation which is the feed lot for STS. It’s like the gods taught their cattle to build their own fences, irrigate their own fields, and fatten themselves up. Good strategy for STS.

 

[SasaM]

Yeah, I suspect the electric universe material could be the missing factor.

Pierre wrote about the relative strength of electricity and gravity in Earth Chanages. Electromagnetic forces are 10^39x stronger than gravitational forces. He mentions an experiment where an oil droplet is charged with a single electron. When subjected to a strong electric field, this single electron could overcome the entire gravitational pull of the Earth.

The prevalence of electromagnetic power over gravity also applies over distance. As he says:

I wonder if it's possible to include this information in your calculations? It may mean the mass requirements are significantly lowered when the power of electromagnetism between cosmic bodies is taken into account?

A lie asks for truth, the C's said, but there's also free will of someone to believe in a lie, so FWIW.

If gravitational force is really negligible compared to e-m force on astronomical scales, would we be able to calculate and predict rather accurately the observed trajectories and orbits of celestial bodies, especially of the comets which are presumably electrically charged bodies, using orbital mechanics that's based and modelled almost exclusively on the mathematical description of Newton's gravitational force? Would Einstein's gravity model or GTR have successfully described the precession of Mercury's perihelion if the premise of gravitational force being negligible was correct?

 

[gottathink]

Well, here's The Economist's 2026 Prediction Cover. A lot of war and a lot of 'medicine', and a soccer (football to some of you) player is kicking the world. Some people suggest this is the most dire 'World Ahead' that they've ever seen from the magazine.
View attachment 113616

Here’s the thread for the 2026 World Ahead cover if you’re interested.

 

[axj]

I wonder if it's possible to include this information in your calculations? It may mean the mass requirements are significantly lowered when the power of electromagnetism between cosmic bodies is taken into account?

I tried it and electromagnetism seems to be indeed a simple solution.

If the Sun and the brown dwarf are electrically charged, then this changes the "effective mass" of the solar system. Even a relatively small electrical charge can then account for 50% more effective mass of the solar system and the orbital parameters given by the C's work.

This is what Deepseek says:

In the electrical universe theory, if the Sun and the brown dwarf have net electrical charges, the electromagnetic force can provide the additional attractive force needed to explain the observed orbital period and semimajor axis. The required product of charges is approximately 5.1e38 C², which is feasible with small net charges relative to the total particles in the Sun.

For the orbital motion, since the force is still inverse-square, Kepler's laws hold, but with an effective mass that includes the electromagnetic contribution. Therefore, the given orbital parameters can match with the electrical forces included.

I was surprised how simple the solution is and it also gives a specific number for the overall electric charge of the Sun and brown dwarf combined. The Sun probably has most of this charge (officially the Sun is assumed to be net neutral and having no electrical charge).

 

[Gabriela]

View attachment 113314
The C's are incredibly patient with us.

I need a t-shirt with this
Thank you for the session Laura and crew!

 

[SasaM]

I tried it and electromagnetism seems to be indeed a simple solution.

If the Sun and the brown dwarf are electrically charged, then this changes the "effective mass" of the solar system. Even a relatively small electrical charge can then account for 50% more effective mass of the solar system and the orbital parameters given by the C's work.

This is what Deepseek says:

I was surprised how simple the solution is and it also gives a specific number for the overall electric charge of the Sun and brown dwarf combined. The Sun probably has most of this charge (officially the Sun is assumed to be net neutral and having no electrical charge).

The thing is that fundamental e-m force is Lorentz force, which includes also the interaction of charges in motion with the magnetic field.
If astronomical bodies were significantly electrically charged, then their trajectories would be influenced by heliospheric solar magnetic field, deviating them from observed orbits. Even if we assume that all the known planets are in principle electrically neutral, if Sun would carry such large overall net charge as proposed by the AI, the comets, which are presumably also electrically charged bodies that discharge the solar capacitor, would be significantly affected. Some of them would even be captured by the magnetic field when passing closer to the Sun. However, we don't observe such things, neither significant deviations of observed orbits nor cometary captures by the solar magnetic field, AFAIK. How would that square with the proposed hypothesis that Sun is significantly electrically charged body?

 

[rrraven]

The thing is that fundamental e-m force is Lorentz force, which includes also the interaction of charges in motion with the magnetic field.
If astronomical bodies were significantly electrically charged, then their trajectories would be influenced by heliospheric solar magnetic field, deviating them from observed orbits. Even if we assume that all the known planets are in principle electrically neutral, if Sun would carry such large overall net charge as proposed by the AI, the comets, which are presumably also electrically charged bodies that discharge the solar capacitor, would be significantly affected. Some of them would even be captured by the magnetic field when passing closer to the Sun. However, we don't observe such things, neither significant deviations of observed orbits nor cometary captures by the solar magnetic field, AFAIK. How would that square with the proposed hypothesis that Sun is significantly electrically charged body?

The Cs have confirmed the electric universe
CometVenus was captured