80% of Universe’s Light “Missing”

In the 19th century, scientists were working under the presumption that the universe was stable and, for practical purposes, infinite in all directions.  They believed matter moved through a field that gave it form.  They called this field an aether.

Then Einstein came along and discovered a way to calculate relativistic mechanics without the need for an aether.  Einstein’s theory was subsequently backed up by experiments that seemed to show there was no aether of the type scientists had once presumed existed.

At the time Einstein first proposed his theories of bending space and relativity without an aether, he did not believe in a “Big Bang” expanding universe.  The Big Bang was actually the brain child of a Catholic priest.  It wasn’t until Hubble came along and showed that the spectra of distant galaxies seemed to shift toward the red end of the light spectrum in proportion to their brightness that Einstein finally conceded that the universe may actually be the product of a “Big Bang.”  However, in the decades that followed, a mountain of contradictory evidence has been accumulating that undermines these assumptions.

Today, we are at a point where scientists are claiming over 90% of the universe is made out of matter and energy that we can’t see and can’t detect.  They are claiming that infinitely dense objects exist (something Einstein also disagreed with.)  They are claiming that stars the size of asteroids can spin around at near light speed and emit a focused beam of energy that is detectable across galactic distances.  They are claiming that stable matter exists in the universe that violates the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry.  In fact, I could go on listing absolutely bizarre and unproven claims until I had enough theory to fill an entire book.

All of these bizarre theories are the result of a few fundamental unproven assumptions.  These assumptions form the central dogma of modern cosmological theory:

1.  On a large scale, space is electrically neutral.  Einstein’s theory of General Relativity completely ignores anything electrical.  It assumes gravity is the sole driving force of the universe.

2.  Space and time are capable of “bending.”  Exactly how space and time accomplish this feat is left completely undefined.  I find it interesting that GR is completely predicated on gravity, but scientists have no idea how gravity actually works.

3.  All red shifting of galaxy spectra is the product of a Doppler effect, which only leaves “expanding space” as the sole explanation for the observations.

Each one of those points has major problems.  Whenever scientists observe data that runs counter to one of the points I just mentioned, they ignore it.  Those three pillars of assumption are never questioned, no matter how much contradictory evidence is accumulated that says otherwise.  Scientists would rather conjure up new hypothetical forms of matter and energy to explain the data instead of questioning any of those fundamental assumptions.

The latest round of insanity that undermines those points comes from observations of the amount of light we see around us.  The Telegraph explains:

The universe is a pretty dark place – but according to astrophysicists it is much too dark.

Scientists have been left scratching their heads after noticing there is a huge deficit of light.

The amount of light in the universe can be measured accurately by studying tendrils of hydrogen which become ionized, or charged, when they encounter ultraviolet light.

The more ionized hydrogen you can spot, the more light should exist.

But, according to a new study in Astrophysical Journal Letters, the hydrogen tendrils suggest there is far more ultraviolet light around than is being emitted by galaxies and quasars.

An astonishing five times too much, in fact, and it is leading astrophysicists to speculate that the photons could be coming from an “exotic new source“, or even decaying dark matter.

It means that 80 per cent of light in the universe is effectively missing.

“It’s as if you’re in a big, brightly-lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt light bulbs,” noted Carnegie’s Juna Kollmeier, lead author of the study. “Where is all that light coming from? It’s missing from our census.”

The journal paper the Telegraph article is predicated on can be found here.

As we can see, they are leaning towards yet another new hypothetical source of matter and energy to explain away contradictory evidence.  These new hypothetical forms of matter and energy are only “necessary” because scientists absolutely refuse, under any circumstance, to question the three pillars of dogma that prop up the standard model of cosmology.

A simple explanation for this observation comes, yet again, from Hannes Alfvén.  Alfvén was a Nobel prize winning plasma physicist who theorized that space was not electrically neutral, and that electricity played a massive roll in the large scale structure of the universe.

Alfvén proved that when a neutral gas, such as non-ionized hydrogen, met with a field of ionized gas (plasma), the neutral gas would start to ionize.  The “critical ionization velocity” is the relative velocity between a neutral gas and a plasma, at which the neutral gas will start to ionize.  If more energy is supplied, the velocity of atoms will not exceed the critical ionization velocity until the gas becomes almost fully ionized.  This fact of science has been proven repeatedly in laboratory experiments around the world.

This effect is capable of explaining why we see so much ionized hydrogen, yet see so little ultraviolet light.  Of course, if this effect is the cause of the ionized hydrogen, this would undermine the first pillar of dogma that I listed.  No scientist would dare question this fundamental dogma of cosmology, so this potential explanation is ignored.

Here’s a paper showing that interstellar neutral hydrogen emission spectra manifest several families of linewidths whose numerical values appear to be related to the critical ionization velocities of the most abundant interstellar atomic species.  This means strong evidence exists that supports this effect being the cause of the excess ionized hydrogen.  In fact, I would call it proof that the CIV effect is the cause of the ionized hydrogen.  To quote the author, “Confirmation of the role of the CIV effect in interstellar space is suggested by the discovery of an association between high-frequency continuum emission peaks and HI structure.”

Physicist Wal Thornhill writes, “You’re right Michael about the critical ionization effect. I’m appalled by the nonsense ideas expressed in the [Telegraph] article. Until cosmology is handed over to plasma experimentalists and Alfvén is listened to there will be no real progress in the subject.”

We can detect magnetic fields in space which, according to Maxwell’s equations, means electricity must be flowing in space to produce them. It is impossible to have a magnetic field without moving electrons. Electrons only move in response to charge imbalance. Once an electron is moving, we have an electric current.

Scientists have no explanations for why we observe large scale magnetic fields around galaxies and galaxy clusters. The so-called “shock injection problem” that arises in explanations of these fields is ignored. In fact, anything that might suggest electricity is flowing in space plasma (which it must in order for it to remain in a plasma state) is ignored.  If you cut off the electric current to any plasma, it will cease to be a plasma in relatively short order.

Scientists brush these fields off by saying the charge is “frozen in” to the fields. Meaning they think magnetic fields can exist without any electric current being present. This is a violation of conservation laws in physics, yet this is what they claim!  Alfvén created MHD theory, which treats plasma as if there is no current running through it.  MHD theory is used by modern scientists to describe virtually all astrophysical plasma today.

I find it interesting that they cite Alfvén’s theorem to support their outrageous claims.  Alfvén referred to his own theory saying:

“I thought that the frozen-in concept was very good from a pedagogical point of view, and indeed it became very popular. In reality, however, it was not a good pedagogical concept but a dangerous “pseudo-pedagogical concept.” By pseudo-pedagogical I mean a concept which makes you believe that you understand a phenomenon whereas in reality you have drastically misunderstood it.

I never totally believed in it myself.

Alfvén goes on to say:

 “M. Azar has studied how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts like double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects and circuits. He has found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these, in spite of the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of the astrophysicists.”

Those statements come from the guy who won the Nobel prize for creating MHD theory in the first place!  You can’t have a magnetic field without an electric current!  Dr. Michael Clarage talks about the difference between mathematical modeling and real plasma here.  In the same interview, Clarage notes that potential explanations of the shock injection problem I mentioned earlier, in regards to the solar environment, don’t hold up.

Space is electrified, nothing cannot bend and red shift is not caused by “expanding space.”   This is just one more piece of evidence, among a massive list of evidence, that undermines the standard model of cosmology.

Here’s a tutorial that explains what’s actually going on in space:


  1. ^ Hannes Alfvén “On the cosmogony of the solar system”, in Stockholms Observatoriums Annaler (1942) Part I Part II Part III FULL TEXT
  2. ^ Hannes Alfvén, On the Origin of the Solar System. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954 ACADEMIC BOOK
  3. ^ Hannes Alfvén, Collision between a nonionized gas and a magnetized plasma, Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 32, p. 710, 1960
  • Pingback: Physics in the News | Scientific Association for the Study of Time in Physics and Cosmology()

  • LogicalReason

    Michael. were you, like me, removed from syndication on PolicyMic after Salon purchased the website?

    • yes. Dissent is not tolerated on that site.

      • LogicalReason

        The fundamental human flaw is the inherent emotional attachment toward preconceived environmental variables. As time goes on, this self deception grows. If a person who has been indoctrinated does not challenge his fundamental understanding of his own wisdom by assessing the validity of nature itself, any concept which could hint toward them to assess a contradiction in their principles will lead to an inevitable emotional discomfort that most will simply elect to deceive themselves by using ad-verecundiam, hominem, baculum, or convocation fallacy at their own expense.

        Yes, even though they make themselves worse off in their own intellectual potential, the temporary emotional (pathos) provides them with the comfort that they are used to.

        But they can’t just let it sit there, because then their own contradictions will be staring them in the face. It’s much easier to simply remove these ‘silly people’. In the end, Democracy elected to put Socrates to death for ‘corrupting the youuth’, ‘atheism’ and ‘creating his own gods’.

      • The ‘father of big bang’ said it was a HOAX in Time magazine interview, “Shift on Shift”, Dec 1936. See “Mysterious Dr X Says, Universe Is NOT Expanding” under Cosmology at the FSS site. In 1949 two Princeton scientists found a prefect solution to the field equations using a Rotational Universe Model, but were ORDERED to silence for ‘national security’ reasons, see “Federally Funded Frankenscience” also at FSS.

      • Loved this article and this comment reminded me that I posted to Reddit’s Ask Science form about the description of Primordial Plasma that I came across on (snicker) Wikipedia. It’s quite an amazing load – and of course has never been answered.

  • WB93

    Excellent article, Michael. Do you happen to remember what Kant said about imagination overcoming reason and leading to wrong conclusions? – Something like ‘just because you can imagine a paradisaical island doesn’t mean it exists or can exist’.

    • Yeah, this isn’t so much about that. This is about vested monetary interests, along with status, prestige and ego.

      This paper on political beliefs applies directly to this subject. The authors write:

      “In each of the four experiments, which were conducted in fall 2005 and spring 2006, ideological subgroups failed to update their beliefs when presented with corrective information that runs counter to their predispositions. Indeed, in several cases, we find that corrections actually strengthened misperceptions among the most strongly committed subjects.”

      – When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions


      • WB93

        Thanks for the useful reference and link.

        I understand what you mean about the main problem with cosmology science being ‘vested interests, status, and ego’. Spent several years in the slime-pits of Academia, where pettiness, dishonesty, and cruelty are honed to a fine point. Then I found out that the same problem dominates the business world. ‘Crabs in a pot’ and ‘Dog in a manger’ come to mind.

        It takes courage and honesty to change one’s views when presented with evidence. After age 32, most of us just dig deeper into our beliefs, defending them at all costs…. Bertrand Russell’s type of ‘faith’ (continuing to believe something even when presented with evidence to the contrary).

        As my good friend Robert Anton Wilson (may he rest in peace) would say, ‘Keep the pizza flying!’

        • Yeah, Wilson is fucking awesome. If you like Wilson, you should check out Alan Watts.

  • Born_On_Constitution_Day

    The math for all of this missing matter, and the related missing gravitational support for the fact that the universe is not contracting because of it, is based upon a fairly newly discovered topology.

    The idea is that there are “missing” or invisible physical dimensions. There are 7 physical dimensions. We live in only 3 of these 7 dimensions – along with time.

    The closed and non-orientable topology used for the model that explains all of this satisfies the structural requirements for mass, charge, hadron and lepton number, and handedness. String theory is effectively dead because there are an infinite number of them, so this means that membranes, aka “branes”, are the base topologies for the current model. The math proves that a non-orientable topology membrane is required to preserve handedness.

    By extending – refolding the topology into each of the perpendicular dimensions – the model reveals that there are 15 other dimensional varieties of “matter”, and kinds of “light.” This explains dark matter. We cannot “see” these other dimensional forms of light.

    A monoid, with array elements similar to Einstein tensors, derived from the hypothetical “flat” 7th dimension, describes the current level of “expansion” required of dark energy.

    This topology is enlightened by using a ring theory of gravity and time as different kinds of multiple-connectivities of space. And since this kind of multiple-connectivity can only be modeled with a closed and non-orientable topology that’s inside is its outside, only one topological model is known for such a model.

    This “theory” has been known since the mid 70’s. The patents issued in 79. This has been suppressed. That’s why you don’t know about it.

    This topology can be held and understood by a fairly clever child. It supplies obvious solutions for fairly complicated physics problems that are immediately derivable using this topological model. Some “secret” solutions currently being searched for are easily solved using this topological model.

    So the elites know the answer to this question, and have access to the advanced technologies that can be discovered because of it. But you don’t have it.

    There you go.

    • Matthew Dale Papke

      what is odd to me: is that the extra dimensions rely upon math (or proof) from the preceding dimension to validate their existence. In this it seems as if they are self fulfilling prophecies.

      • Born_On_Constitution_Day

        Math is math. The above described topology originally solved the problems of handedness and contradictions and absurdities of string theory using what was then called the MIT Bag Theory, modified to include a non-orientable multiply-connected manifold that violated Gauss’s Theorem, and hence was anti-iconic . It accidentally solved the dark matter problems long before there was any evidence for dark matter and dark energy. In fact, its predictions of “missing matter” and “missing light” was initially laughed at by the establishment scientists. In fact, it took from the mid 70’s until usage of the Hubble telescope found the evidence in the odd behavior of galaxies that pointed at the named but not adequately described “dark matter” which, in turn, required a new theory for gravity under the term “dark energy.” This span of time exceeded 20 years from theory to evidentiary validation is HUGE. This IS prophesy, and NOT self-fulfilling in any way. It is genius, not fraud.

        • Topological descriptions will always fail because they can’t account for the known dynamic effects of electrified plasma, such as double layers and pinches. Topological theories can only describe a configuration of plasma as a snapshot in a moment in time. Without the addition of circuit theory, a complete understanding of how and why the plasma formations behave as they do will never be achieved.

          • Born_On_Constitution_Day

            String theory and membrane/brane theory are VERY small compared to these macro effects.

          • If they offer no insight to macro effects, then they really amount to nothing more than mental masturbation. I don’t really care about theories like string theory or brane theory because they don’t provide any useful knowledge.

            If scientists want to mentally masturbate over theories that offer no value, I’m all fine with that. I just don’t want my tax money going to study it.

          • Born_On_Constitution_Day

            How much more macro is it that this theory predicted that over 90% of the stuff in the universe is invisible, and the energy to keep all that stuff from collapsing the universe must be MUCH greater than the mass of all that stuff ?


            Not too bright, eh?

            I see a One Watt Bulb who wants to be a decision maker.

            What’s the different between such ignorance and indifference?
            I got it.
            You don’t know and you don’t care, right ?
            By macro, I mean the electrical plasma effects, as different than the subatomic particle structural conditions.
            Please buy a tall hat, then maybe you will get a clue when something is over your head.

          • Hey, if you want to call me ignorant because I don’t believe 90% of the universe is composed out of matter we can’t see and can’t detect, I suppose that’s your perogative.

            Meanwhile, I have papers that can account for galactic rotation rates, galaxy formation, double radio sources, quasars, etc.. etc.. without using any dark matter, dark energy, strange matter, or any other hypothetical bullshit.

            Particle In Cell simulations of plasma, along with laboratory proven plasma phenomena, can account for ALL observations of galactic and stellar pheneomena.

            There is no dark matter. There is no dark energy. Claiming 90% of the universe is made up of invisible matter and energy is a fucking joke. It’s a joke. I laugh at people who believe that bullshit.

          • Born_On_Constitution_Day

            I took some time to examine your theories of plasma and so forth to explain a bunch of current physics theories.

            Perhaps you can point me at a more detailed explanation (page and paragraph please) within the large volume of theory expressed on that web site ?

            First a little history lesson.

            The initial method used to “discover” or provide empirical evidence of dark matter was that live pictures of galaxies were used and Cepheid variable stars were clocked within these galaxies and their speed and momentum were measured and the resulting evidence were compiled and compared. And, low, the entire galaxy was found to be moving internally like it was on a plate, not at all what was “expected.” They expected galaxies to behave like our solar system, and they do not. Many galaxies were examined before publication of the empirical discovery was announced. There was something so huge underlying these galaxies that it could not be explained, and still defies standard model explanations. It is a thorn in the hide of modern physics. Something has got to change in the general theories of subatomic particles as well as general theory of relativity (gravity) before an explanation will be found.

            Your theories (and that website’s as well) about plasma cannot fully explain the consistency of the whole galaxy’s red shift and the commensurate and consistent red shifts of the individual stars within it. Coherent light would not yield such anomalies across many galaxies and many Cepheid variable stars. The accidental coherence required would screw up everything uniformly for the entire speck of light being examined, and a year later would be expected to change, unless you care to suggest that somebody out there is manipulating what light reaches our telescopes at such a distance that a parsec of movement by the Earth can be managed.

            In my opinion, these so-called alternative explanations of the Hubble telescope’s red shift discoveries are insufficient to explain the entire phenomenon, though they are able to cast some doubt on the relative accuracy of the theoretical distances of the galaxies in question. Perhaps an order of two of magnitude of distance can be added to the standard issues of astrophysical accuracy (which is already pretty large), but the concept of red shift galactic distances remains sound, as far as I am concerned. And the problem of the internal speeds and momentum vectors of the stars within these galaxies cannot be explained using the concept that the whole galaxy’s red shift is in some kind of error.

            The observed behaviors of the standard model (not including the Higgs Boson, which is still out as far as I am concerned) is what is at stake.

            Unified gravity with quantum theories is what is being discussed here. And your alternative theories do not handle this, nor the topological math that unifies gravity with quantum.

            You still need a tall hat.

          • Real plasma is messy, so there are probably interacting effects contributing to red shift. Halton Arp found that quasars seem to appear in fields around host galaxies. If you take a quasar field and transform it against the rest frame of the apparent host galaxy, quantized red shift becomes apparent. So that means there is most likely some intrinsic red shift going on at the atomic level.

            It may be that are also some very modest Doppler effects going on as well, but not enough to conclude some kind of big bang happened, and certainly not enough to conclude quasars are ultra super massive objects at the edge of space.


  • Matthew Dale Papke

    Thunderbolts of the Gods is epic. I love science.

    • I still remember the first time I saw it. There are very few instance in my life where my worldview was shattered in one fell swoop. Watching Thunderbolts was one of those instances.

  • Letem Dangle

    No wonder they shut down Tesla.

  • Terry Vines Sr.

    also as light travels through a plasma long enough it will appear to red shift thus to the observer who see’s the red shift they will falsely think that the object that produced the light is moving away from the observer when if fact it is not

  • Rick

    Yes most Physics textbooks post 1980’s are not any good. Teaching unproven, unobserved, even untested theories as fact. All it takes is for a physicist to propose an idea and it ends up in the text as fact. Don’t get me started on the peer review.
    By the way, many Physicists still believe in an “aether” of sorts. Ever heard of “quantum foam”?

    • Yeah the Higgs field is the new take on an aether concept. I think it’s all an unnecessary complication. If they are going to have an aether, Lorentz’s version makes more sense.

  • Well I

    Guess if you can’t have a magnetic field without current then magnets can’t exist…LOL.

  • Brian in Chile

    Physics made a horrible mistake back at the turn of the last century when they threw out the concept of “The Luminiferous Aether” as a consequence of a faulty interpretation of the Michelson-Morley Null Result. We need to go back to the future and resurrect The Aether in order for modern physics to bootstrap itself back to more theoretically sensible ground. All branches of physics subliminally recognize The Aether. They just call it by a different name : dark matter, zero point potential, etc.

    • I agree. I don’t think the results were necessarily faulty, just misinterpreted. Standing waves in an aether could explain the null results of the MM experiments while still maintaining the theoretical presence of an aether. I’m not fully convinced of Millers results. They haven’t been repeatable.

      • Chad Helm

        The “Ether” is Space itself, which is Super-Dense, and in fact, the Opposite and Cause of Matter itself.

  • Djh

    DEAD LINKS on your reference articles (All of them)

    • I assume your talking about the “massive list” article at the bottom. The clickable numbers don’t work, but the references are all at the bottom of the article. I’ll have to take some time and remove all the links from the numbers.

  • Sparky

    I wonder what Tesla would say if he was here?

    1. So is electromagnetic radiation a particle or a wave?

    2. If it is a wave what is it waving in and through:electrons?

    3. If a photon is a particle how come it doesn’t give off waves at right angles to the direction of travel, as it passes by- in analogy such as the wake from a boat or the propagation of sound waves yet the Doppler affect is observed in the frequency shift of EMF by the red shift?

    4. For that matter: why does light appear to only have ‘two dimensions’ which fits ‘Relativistic theory’ as acceleration to C would have no dimension in the direction of travel and time would be reduced to zero in the accelerated reference (fitting the formula)?

    5. How does the EU account for Space/Time Dilation in the above- accelerated or gravitational reference where clocks tic differently: a measured and established ‘everyday’ phenomenon? This naturally embarks down the postulate that C is the cosmic speed limit and this runs into the Schwartzchild radius of a super massive object having a gravitational field equal to C thus even electromagnetic radiation can’t escape and would be electromagnetically invisible.

    6. What phenomenon explains the solar system being organized around a few degrees of the invariable plane or for that matter why are so many galaxies observed to be flat? A homogeneous gravitational field is hard pressed to explain this yet a horseshoe magnet static flux field and graphite filings give an elementary explanation.

    Describing an electrical circuit as an electron flux field propagation- the magnetic field (the phenomenon that travels at the speed of light) the actual electron propagation is extremely slow at the scale of photon quantum absorption and emission doesn’t the EU default that empty space is ‘full’ of electrons?

    The film does bring up anomalous phenomenon that the sun does behave more like an ‘induction furnace’ than the fusion: hydrogen–>Helium model. Arguments are made against the fusion model that say there isn’t enough gravity to account for the amount of total transformations required to explain the solar irradiance observed. This gravitational fusion theory is also questionable as it stands because it says that a single photon was created in the suns center and takes a million years (quantum absorption and emission) to reach the surface yet the center of the sun would be gravitationally neutral- the net pressure would be lower as all points gravitationally cancel each other. In theory the pressure in the center of the sun would be zero.

    The electric universe: what is so strange about it being electric if ‘everything’ that what we sense and measure is electromagnetic in nature but the EU still has difficulty explaining gravity from an EU postulate alone.

    The pictographs document observed simultaneous phenomenon which could be accounted for be a gamma ray jet from a spinning star going super nova sideways which would make a ‘new son’ (at night or day) and wreck a lot of other havoc. This would also explain cyclic climate behavior that is otherwise left unexplained such as the ending of the ice ages or the forming of the ice ages for that matter which when the mile and two mile high glaciers melt- epic flooding and sea level rise occurred repeatedly.

    Nevertheless plasma is the forth state of matter if you don’t count some other phenomenon of atomic disassociation at near absolute zero or other low temperature phase changes.

  • Pingback: Jetson scooter()

  • Jesse Lacey

    I’m so confused, it says here that Einstein didn’t accept the Big Bang Theory until Hubble showed galaxies were slightly red shifted. Thing is, Einstein died in 1955, and Hubble launched in 1990. Sooo… yeah, how does that work?

    • Edwin Hubble, born November 20, 1889

      • Jesse Lacey

        Ahh, ok, you should maybe throw the Edwin in the article, there’s people like me I’m sure who hear red-shift and hubble and immediately think of the hubble telescope and all the amazing work it’s done. That makes so much more sense.

  • Jesse Lacey

    Also, are you saying Magnetars and Pulsars don’t exist? I mean I agree them moving at nearly the speed of light seems off, I thought they just rotated extremely fast. In fact they found either two stars or two Pulsars orbiting each other to be the fastest known known celestial bodies, orbiting each other in something like 5-8 seconds. I’m just a little confused on some of the facts in here like Einstein being alive 35 years after he died.

    • They exist, they just aren’t rotating super dense stars. They are part of electrical circuit of oscillating plasma that causes the pulses.

      • Jesse Lacey

        Ok, I can understand what you’re saying, but it leaves one last question, how would that cause the effect we see when there’s a “star quake” on a magnetar? That’s something that’s visible from extremely far away, the energy that’s released is just massive, and I thought it also contained gamma rays which are a product of stars. Can oscillating plasma cause the same effect?

  • Jesse Lacey

    Last thing, was is your take on Io? At this point I’m 100% convinced that the “volcanic eruptions” on Io are almost all actually plasma arcs. It was first suggested in 1979 by Thomas? Gold, and backed up later in 1988 but still is not the common theory. But it actually explains everything, like how lava can travel faster than 1 km/s and why the temperature of the lava is so much hotter than lava on earth that NASA’s sensors actually hit the limit of what they can measure, and ended up having to rewrite how hot lava can get. Plus there’s the fact that the “volcanos” can move around Io at rates which are impossible, and the lack of visible calderas. There is still volcanos on Io but they make very different shapes on the surface, instead of being a perfect black circle, they resemble how lava on earth spreads out, usually covering one side but not the other in an egg shape with the volcano being on the small side of the shape. So just curious what your take is, do you believe it’s just simply volcanic effects we just don’t understand? Or plasma arcs that seem to answer all the questions that don’t make sense for a volcano.

      • Jesse Lacey

        That’s actually one of the exact articles I read, and think it’s beyond just a compelling arguement and that this is something we should really take a second look at. It could have benefits to man because of our limited knowledge of how lightning works on earth, and even more so how it works in space. But for whatever reason NASA still says that volcanic activity is to blame, even when it just doesn’t seem to make sense.