return to homepage How my Unified Field solves
return to updates
the Galactic Rotation Problem
and how the dark matter math is fudged
by Miles Mathis
Abstract: I show that MOND is a hint in the right direction, despite being only an added function. I show that my unified field fills in all the holes of MOND. Then I show the gigantic fudge in the math of the dark matter hypothesis. Adding mass cannot solve galactic rotation, except by magically redefining Newton's variables. Then I show the unified field equation for velocity that solves the entire problem, in one line of math. Finally, I show why "normal" matter is only 5% of the total, deriving the 19 to 1 ratio by simple math, directly from current equations.
If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.
In a long paper on the Allais Effect, I mentioned several modified Newtonian fields of the past, including those of Quirino Majorana and others. Once we are familiar with these older (and failed) modified Newtonian fields, we can see the newest modified field in the same light. I am speaking of course of MOND, the Modified Newtonian Dynamics of Mordehai Milgrom [from about 1983]. While this MOND is preferable to the theory of dark matter, and while it does move slowly in the right direction, it is woefully incomplete (as I think even Milgrom would admit). Lee Smolin has put it this way:
MOND is a tantalizing mystery, but not one that can be solved now.
He means by that that MOND seems to point to some new field, but that it is not a field we know about. Smolin is both right and wrong. MOND is tantalizing, in that it implies a new field; but the mystery has already been solved: the “new field” is simply the charge field. MOND is pointing directly at my unified field.
The problem is that Milgrom's new function μ is physically and mechanically unassigned. It is basically just a fudge factor or a hole filler, a piece of raw math with no theoretical or field underpinning. In other words, we are never told what causes it.
The form of Milgrom's math is also a clear problem, since, like Majorana and the others before him, he adds the field outside of Newton's equation. In MOND, the rotational velocity is found by this equation
v = 4√GMa0
As you see, his constant is separate from G and M.
But I have shown that Newton's equation is correct, as written. This is why I do not call my unified field a modification of Newton. I have not modified Newton's equation, I have pulled it apart and interpreted it more fully. You see, the trick is that the neceassary variations are already contained within G and M, so we do not need any new functions or constants. We just have to understand what G and M really stand for, and how they work mechanically.
This is why the solution has been so difficult to see. It was hidden in the constants and variables we already had.
Let me gloss my unified field one more time. The Universal Gravitational Constant G is the key, since it is not a naked constant, but a scaling constant between two fields. Newton's equation, as written, already contains the charge field, and G scales between charge and gravity. All we have to do is write each mass in the equation as a density and a volume, giving the volume to the gravity field and the density to the charge field. G then scales between them, taking the atomic size down to the photon size. This is necessary because gravity is relationship between atoms, or things made of atoms, while charge is relationship between photons and atoms. For charge to work, photons have to collide with atoms or ions, and this requires a scaling between the two particle sizes. I explain this much more fully elsewhere.
Once Newton's equation is interpreted in this way, we find subtle changes in the field. I have already uncovered many of these changes in other papers [see especially the two-mile problem], but in this case the change becomes quite large and obvious. The velocity divergence in outer arms of galaxies is very large, and is not what anyone would call subtle. This is why I found this problem so interesting, and why I had to leap on it instantly. It is solved immediately not by tweeking the equation, but by recognizing the variation in the field. Put simply, the charge field variation from center of galaxy to outer reaches is very large. Since all matter emits charge, there will be much more charge near the center of the galaxy.
The mainstream has missed this obvious field variation for many reasons. One, they give charge to the messenger photon, which is a virtual photon. Since virtual photons do not take up any space in the field, they could not provide any drag. Two, even if they began giving the charge field to real photons, their real photons also do not take up any space in the field. Since they are point particles in the math, they cannot take up space or provide drag in the field. Three, all mainstream theories have ignored the charge field completely. They have tried to solve this problem with gravity alone, or gravity plus relativity, or gravity plus unassigned functions. They have not seen that Newton's equation must include the charge field. Nor have they seen that if Newton's equation includes the charge field, it must cause both subtle and unsubtle variations in the field mechanics.
I will be told that my solution requires more than just a re-interpretation of Newton's equation. It also requires a re-interpretation of the photon. Newton's equation, by itself, has nothing to say about the photon. True enough. However, it may be worth pointing out that Newton did not think the photon to be virtual or to be a point. He agreed with me since he agreed with Descartes on this question: anything that exists has extension. The photon exists, therefore it must have a radius. If it has a radius, it takes up space. If it takes up space, it must provide drag.
The mainstream should know this, since they admit that the photon has momentum and energy. A thing with energy and momentum could hardly be “invisible” in the field. It could not act as a ghost, regarding drag. A photon could not be capable of knocking electrons out of atoms, but incapable of taking up space in the field. A mathematical point cannot knock an electron out of an atom. This is because scattering could be thought of as a kind of drag. Both would be caused by real collisions. You cannot propose that the same particle can cause scattering, but cannot cause drag.
The reason Milgrom's MOND was so tantalizing is that he had the right variation, in a way, and also the right explanation of it. He said that his function did not cause measurable variation in the solar system because gravity is so strong here, near the Sun. That is not precisely correct, but it is a good hint. It is not because gravity is so strong here, it is because the Sun is the only major body acting as the central mass, making the velocity follow the inverse of the radius (see below).
This is why the solar system seems to follow gravity alone, while the galaxy seems to follow charge. The unified field relates gravity to charge, and this makes Milgrom nearly correct. The density variation in the solar system acts to diminish the charge field variations due to the sphere, causing the bodies to follow classical equations pretty closely. This is just one more reason charge has been invisible to us.
This is also why globular clusters show much less charge variation, and therefore much more velocity variance, than galaxies. It is simply a matter of density distribution. Globular clusters are known to have much higher star densities than galaxies, and, as with the solar system, this density tends to flatten out the charge variation. Less charge variation means greater velocity variation, as we will see in the equations below.
But first, let us look at the dark matter hypothesis for a moment. Initially, it was said that around 50% of the matter of a galaxy must be in a galactic halo, completely outside the visible galaxy. This number is now about 95%. Yes, a big problem required a big solution, and this tells us how large the velocity variance from prediction really was. I should think the theory has long since gone past the point of absurdity, just based on that percentage, but I will look more closely at it anyway. If you visit a place like Wikipedia, you find dark matter proposed as the solution to velocity variance, but you get no math or theory. How does dark matter in the halo, even at 95%, cause a flat velocity? If the answer were clear, you would think Wikipedia would take the time to gloss it. It shouldn't take long, should it? This is a big clue. Wiki usually likes to cloak the theories with math, but here we get nothing. That must mean the math is really pathetic.
M = mass lying within stellar orbit
You only have to do the baldest math to see that extra mass out there can't solve the problem. Remember, the mainstream math doesn't have my charge field, so they are not using charge to flatten the field as I will. They are adding mass but not charge. If you simply add mass to a halo, you cannot increase an orbital velocity. This is because orbital velocity has nothing to do with mass. It has to do only with distance from center. a = v2/r, remember? No mass variable there. The dark matter hypothesis is not any type of MOND, so it is not claiming to modify Newton at all. Well, according to Newton's equations, the orbital velocity is determined by distance and nothing else. Jupiter's orbital velocity is not determined by its mass, and if we took the Earth out to the distance of Jupiter, it should have the same orbital velocity as Jupiter.
The dark matter hypothesis needs to tell us more than “dark matter.” It needs to tell us how dark matter can cause greater orbital velocities. Say there is a huge amount of dark matter in a halo around most galaxies. How will this affect the velocity of shining matter that we can measure? Well, it would tend to suck all the matter out of the galaxy toward the halo, but it wouldn't affect the orbital velocity of that matter at all (unless it decreased it—see below). This is because, according to both Newton and Einstein, gravity has no force at the tangent. A gravity field cannot apply a tangential force, only a centripetal force. Therefore, a large halo could only pull out on matter inside it. It could not pull sideways. According to both Newton and Einstein, gravity can neither cause nor increase a tangential velocity. It has no mechanism to do so. According to the explicit math of Newton, an orbital velocity is the compound of a centripetal force of gravity and an innate motion of the orbiter—this innate motion being the tangential or straight-line velocity. Since gravity and the innate motion are independent, gravity can never affect the innate motion. Therefore gravity cannot cause the tangential velocity, much less change it. It can only determine the radius, given the innate velocity.
The mainstream* try to get around this by using this equation
v2 = MG/r
Whereby, if you increase the mass you increase the velocity. Unfortunately, that is gigantic fudge, since M is the mass of the center, not the mass of some body in orbit. That equation comes from solving these three equations
F = ma
F = GMm/r2
a = v2/r
M is explicitly defined as the large central mass causing the field, not the mass in orbit. In the case of a galaxy, it would be the mass of the galactic core, not the mass of the galaxy as a whole or of a body orbiting the galactic core. Therefore, their math is completely upside down. They have “solved” only by ignoring the explict definitions of the variables in the equations. At the Duke University website linked below, the author states
That proves my point, since that means we are talking about the galactic core here. Since the core is not a discrete object in a galaxy, all the mass inside the radius can be called the core. M is the central mass, not the orbiting mass. This is crucial, since the mass and the velocity both increase as r increases. An increase in M doesn't just increase velocity in the outer reaches, it increases velocity everywhere proportionally, like an increase of a.
To say this another way, the dark matter people want to re-interpret Newton in a very unorthodox way. They want to take my sentence, "the mass and the velocity both increase as r increases" and interpret it to mean that if we add more mass at radius r, we can increase the velocity at that distance. So they do just that. They add more and more mass as the radius increases, to force this mass to offset the normal workings of Newton's equations. Unfortunately, that is not what Newton's variable assignments and equations tell us. M in the equation above does not stand for mass at that radius, it stands for mass inside that radius, as Duke University admits. This makes the velocity at all radii greater, but does not make the velocity at all radii equal.
This means that the dark matter math is also a type of modified Newtonian dynamics. It is modified in that it takes the definitions and turns them upside down. We could call it a FFAND: a falsified and fudged Newtonian dynamics.
What this equation of Newton v2 = MG/r is actually telling us is that if we increase the mass of the galactic core, we can increase all the orbital velocities, at all radii. But it is not telling us that we can flatten the field in any way. And if we increase the mass of a halo, we have thereby relatively decreased the mass of the core, which must DECREASE all orbital velocities. Dark matter would make the problem worse.
Another major problem with the dark matter solution here is that a halo with that amount of matter could not remain undetectable in our own galaxy. We always hear of dark matter supposedly found here and there, as WIMPs or whatnot, but of course the best place to look would be in our own halo, would it not? If 95% of the mass of the galaxy is in a halo, then it cannot be invisible to all detection, dark or not. Remember, we are in an outer arm of our galaxy, and therefore we would be quite near this halo. Unless we are looking toward the core, we are looking through this halo whenever we aim our telescopes into space. With a mass nealy equal to the entire galaxy, this halo must have an appreciable density. Why doesn't it affect our extra-galactic views? We can't detect it even indirectly, as it shifts or distorts or tamps down incoming data. It doesn't really matter if it is baryonic or non-baryonic: if it is real, it must have density, no matter what it is made of. It cannot have mass and lack density, can it? A thing can have mass and lack density only by changing the definition of mass or density. That is what all the larking about with non-baryonic matter is: the attempt to convince you, by some sort of speechifying, that matter can have mass but no density. WIMPs and axions and hidden sector particles are all "heavy" particles with no density. They are heavy ghost particles, in other words. If you can imagine heavy ghosts, good luck to you. The fact is, "heavy" and "weakly interacting" are mutually exclusive adjectives. A thing can interact weakly only if it is small or diffuse, and if it is small or diffuse, it cannot be heavy. Once more, this is just the sad attempt to change the definitions of words. As the void is now a thing, and as virtual particles now cause motions, we have heavy massive particles that are both weakly interacting and undetectable. It is so pathetic it truly defies belief.
I believe in some dark matter. The earth is a bit of dark matter, of course. But these theories of weakly interacting massive particles could not be more silly. The fact that anyone takes them seriously is a sign of the nadir. We don't need WIMPs, we need to understand that photons have mass and radius. All these ridiculous problems and theories are caused by refusing to let the photon be a real particle.
Remember that I have shown that charge is equivalent to mass. But the standard model has not gotten that message. They have forgotten to weigh all the charge in the universe and to include it in their energy totals. They don't even include the weight of the E/M spectrum in their totals, telling us that photons have no rest mass. In other words, they don't include the mass of visible photons, much less the mass of invisible photons that we already know about, like infrared photons and so on. The few models that do include normal photons in the mass of the universe only include a small fraction of them. For instance, I have shown that every electron is emitting a charge each second that outweighs it by 35,000 times (see math below). All that charge is unweighed by the standard model, and is not included in their totals. That is why they need dark matter and dark energy in the amount of 95%. Dark energy is mostly charge. It is charge photons. This charge is also what is causing drag in the inner parts of the galaxy, creating a flat velocity line.
With this under out belts, we can return to the MOND equation for velocity.
v = 4√GMa0
Once again the problem is with the mass variable M. Milgrom created MOND to compete with the dark matter math, but he accepted their definition of M. The fudge I uncovered at Duke has been embedded in the galactic rotation problem almost from the beginning. Milgrom does not use a capital M here by accident. He just took their math and varied it, using his new functions and constants, as is clear from this equation. Therefore, he has inherited their fudge. His mass is misdefined, so that his equation cannot prove what he hopes to prove. Because his mass M is the mass of the central body (galactic core, in this case), his equation is flawed at the ground level. An increase in that mass will increase the velocity, yes, but it will not flatten the graph. It will increase all velocities proportionally. To do what he wants it to do, the mass would have to be re-assigned, as with the dark matter math. But you cannot do that without cheating. To do that would not be a modification of Newton, it would be a complete refutation of Newton and his variables.
The form of Milgrom's equation also makes it impossible for him to solve this problem. As you will see from my math, what we need is a differential, but Milgrom's velocity equation is too simple. Both G and a0 are constants, so that v can be a constant only if M is. But M cannot be a constant, as we saw with the dark matter math. M is the core, which in a galaxy is anything below radius r. This means that as we increase r, we increase M. So M is changing in Milgrom's equation. This means that v will also change, and the velocity is not flat.
On the other hand, if Milgrom defines M as the mass of a constant core, he is guilty of another cheat. He has rigged his equations so that the radius cancels, which means we don't know the radius for the velocity he is finding. He simply states that the equation is good for all radii, but his derivation doesn't show that. To the contrary, his equation requires a radius, and it is saved in the current form (to a small degree) only because mass will vary as radius does. If he redefines the mass as a constant, however, he has just contradicted his own derivation.
So let me now correct all this bad math and theory. As a first question, we may ask how dense the matter field, and therefore the charge field, would have to be in order to begin causing photon drag. Well, we know that the charge field is dense enough in the solar system to cause axial tilts and variations from Bode's law and perturbations and torques and magnetospheres and so on, so the charge field here is already dense enough to cause drag. All charge field phenomena could be called drags of one sort or another, and if the charge field can cause perturbations it can cause velocity variances. It is not lack of a charge field in the solar system that causes the planets' velocities to follow the inverse of the radius, it is something else entirely, as I show below. Therefore, a matter density such as we find in the vicinity of Neptune is more than enough to create the required photon density. If it were not, then the axis of Neptune could not be turned by the charge field.
But again, how dense is the charge field? I have shown that the electron is emitting about 35,000 times its own mass every second as charge. You will say, "Hold on there! I won't bother taking that link, since that is ridiculous." But I took it right out of current definitions:
e = 1.602 x 10-19 C
1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)
e = 3.204 x 10-26 kg/s
If the electron is given a charge of e, that's 35,000 electrons masses per second. And it comes out to 19 protons per second. If the charge photon has an average mass of around 2.77 x 10-37kg, then that is around 1.15 x 1011 photons per second. 11.5 billion photons per second, by each charged baryon. Which is an average density of .03 kg/m3/s inside the Bohr radius. We will make good use of that density in later papers.
So why don't we measure the charge field when we weigh things? Because the charge field is completely uncontained and cannot be weighed. It is travelling c in all directions, and has no rest mass. Despite that, its mass must be included in all totals. If standard model totals are correct, and 95% of the total mass is unaccounted for, then it would appear that photons outweigh everything else by about 19 to 1. After doing the math above, that is not hard to believe at all. In fact, the math just above generates the number 19. That is why the mainstream is getting a figure of 95%: 95% is the same as 19 to 1. Current physicists have the right number but the wrong explanation. It is the charge field that outweighs baryonic matter by 19 to 1, not dark matter.
Some have read these equations and dismissed the 19 to 1 ratio as a coincidence, since my equations include a time variable. But it is no coincidence. My exposition of these equations shows exactly how mass is already time dependent itself. Since I have shown elsewhere that mass is actually a motion, mass must also be time dependent. Motion is always time "dependent," since time is in the denominator. This would mean that nothing is really time independent. Another way to say that is that the current 19 to 1 ratio of "dark matter/energy" to baryonic mass already includes a time variable, without anyone being aware of it. Since the time variable always used is the second, my new equations match the numbers of mainstream equations. The only difference is that my equations include the second explicitly, and theirs include it implicitly. Since the charge field is an emission field, it has to include time. Not that time varies as we move from past to future, but that emission is a thing that happens over time. Emission is a process, not a static fact. That is why my equations include the second. The mainstream equations don't include the second, because they are equations of mass or charge, and it is thought that mass and charge are static when they are not. They may be STABLE, but they are not static. Mass and charge are both motion, and all motion includes time, by definition.
Some will say, "That implies that the mass of the proton is not really measured in kilograms, it is measured in kilograms per second. You can't mean that." Yes, I do mean that. The current notation is fine in most circumstances, since we drop the time in almost all equations. It only comes up in problems like this, when we see clearly that charge is an emission, and an emission happens over time. That is clear enough, I think, but since I have shown that mass and charge are dimensionally the same (and always have been, in mainstream equations), if charge is time dependent, mass must be also. For more on this, reread my paper on charge, especially where I show why charge is sometimes expressed as mass and sometimes as mass per second.
All that was an interesting diversion, but we don't need to count up photons or weigh them in order to solve this problem. We can take some shortcuts, the biggest shortcut being G. We know that if the charge field drag is ignored or if it is constant, a spherical field can be simplified to v = √(ar). But let's rewrite that to get a mass in it
F = GmM0/r2
F = ma
a = GM0/r2
v = √(GM0/r)
That mass is the central mass, or the mass inside the radius r. If we let M0 be the mass of the entire galaxy and r equal the radius of the entire galaxy, that equation gives us a velocity of about 390 km/s for stars at the edge our own galaxy, which is close to the current value of 220 km/s. But this remaining difference indicates appreciable charge field drag even at the outer edge of the galaxy. It also indicates that the current numbers are wrong, since we don't have enough mass in the outer reaches to make up that much difference.
But now we have to include the charge field drag, to create a differential equation. In the above equation, we have the charge field included in the scaler G, so that the equation is already a unified field equation, but we have not indicated a charge presence in the field as size, so that the photons can create drag. As written, the equation only indicates the energy of the charge field relative to the gravity field, allowing the charge field to collide with matter and create the E/M field. But the equation does not include the separate but related ability of the charge field to create resistance or drag. To do that, we have to create a separate term in the equation, and subtract it from the first term. Like this:
v = √[(GM0/r) – (Gmr/r)]
This second mass is defined as the mass at radius r, rather than the mass inside radius r. This solves the problem of previous maths, which did not include both variables. This second term represents the density of the charge field at a given radius and allows us subtract it out as a sort of drag. Because the mass at that radius is multiplied by G, it becomes the emitted charge field instead of the matter field. In the first term, G scales between two fields, both fields being represented in the term. But in the second term, G is simply taking the matter field and turning it into the charge field. In this way, the second term is able to represent the drag of that field. Many would have tried to solve by creating a drag equation, but this is a much simpler method of solving, as you can see.
Once we study the equation, it becomes clear why it gives us different slopes for the galaxy and for the solar system. This equation is actually the correct one for all systems, but in the solar system we approximate by ignoring the second term. If you insert some numbers, you find that the reason it doesn't create a flat line in the solar system is that the mass inside r is always about the same. With only small variations, the mass inside r is just the mass of the Sun. So M0 doesn't change with different values of r, and this makes v change with r inversely. But in the galaxy, M0 changes greatly with different values of r. All the mass inside r counts as the core, so it increases substantially as r increases. And as the first term gets larger, the second does too, which means the differential tends to remain nearly constant due to the density distribution of spiral galaxies.
Some will say that this new equation can't be right, since it gives us too large a variance in the second term for planets in the solar system. And if we apply the equation to the orbit of the Moon about the Earth, the variance becomes even larger. Am I really offering this equation as a general equation? Yes, I am, since these problems are easy to solve. First of all, the variance isn't that great, due to the square root, even with the Moon. And we also have other factors we are ignoring. Remember, in the solar system and Moon system, we have a charge field inside a greater charge field. In the case of the Moon, for instance, the equation would be existing inside the much greater equation of the Sun's field. The Sun's charge field is much greater than that of the Earth, so it tends to tamp down the charge variations between the Earth and Moon. This also applies to the solar system, since the solar system is not only in its own charge field, it is in the greater charge field of the galaxy. Nonetheless, this new equation will help us fine tune all the velocities in all orbits. It will also force us to recognize the field presence of the photon, not only as charge but as resistance. This is the correct equation, and always has been. Historical and current equations are only attempts to derive this full unified field equation.
Yes, this is my relativistic unified field equation, in its velocity form. In an earlier paper, I developed the relativistic unified field equation, as a force, by a completely different method. Here, I developed the velocity equation from first postulates again, not using my UFT force equation. Fortunately, the two equations match, confirming both papers and both equations. You may study an even more recent paper to show how the two equations resolve.
Other critics will point out that we have done experiments showing that photons coming to us from long distances are not affected by any ether, field, or "foaminess" of space. NASA recently published a video showing just this, in a long anticipated experiment. Shouldn't this disprove my equation and my theory? No, since the photon field is not affecting photons in this paper. The photon field is affecting matter here. I am proposing that photons have drag on matter, not that they have drag on other photons. I have never proposed that the charge field affects the linear speed of photons, or that it would affect small wavelengths more than large wavelengths. I have shown that it would change wavelengths, but not that it would change some more than others. Therefore, the NASA experiment and other experiments have nothing to say here.
From all this, we see that the problem has been that contemporary physicists do not understand Newton's gravity field. They don't even comprehend the variable assignments, and nothing is more basic. I have shown that this applies to both sides of this argument. It also applies to the non-symmetric gravitational theory of John Moffat, since Moffat just tries to hide behind tensors, and the conformal gravity of Philip Mannheim, who hides behind Riemannian curves. We do not need curved math or tensors to solve this. We just need to understand the variables and constants in Newton's equation.
Conclusion: we do not have to propose any modification to Newton or Einstein to solve the galactic rotation problem. Nor do we need dark matter. We simply have to recognize the charge field, which already resides inside Newton's equation. Once we do this, the problem evaporates.
Addendum: I am told that the bullet cluster killed MOND and proved dark matter, but I have now published a refutation of the Clowe et. al. papers from 2004 and 2006 that all refer to when saying this. In it, I show that once again bad math, poor logic, and unproved assumptions are standing in for real physics.
Postscript, September 2011: my editor Joe Hyde just sent me this link from University of California Santa Cruz and the Institute for Theoretical Physics Zurich, where they are claiming to have finally modelled a spiral galaxy. This was considered impossible before now, since using the current gravitational theory they couldn't get enough mass into the arms. They solved it by using three supercomputers, including NASA's Pleiades computer, on which alone they logged 1.4 million processor hours! This was just part of over nine months of "number crunching". This is supposed to impress the reader, but I remind you of a little thing called Occam's razor, which they like to trot out whenever it suits them (and hide whenever it suits them). Look above, where I solved the same problem in one day, in my head. It doesn't require "number crunching", as you see, or any number of supercomputers. It requires a minor correction to the old faulty equations. Not a push, but an actual correction. The difference between a push and correction is that the push has no theory attached, only reams of computer paper. My correction above includes all the mechanics, as usual, since I show you the physical cause of each mathematical step. They didn't need a lot more fancy math or computer time, they needed to recognize that the charge field existed inside their gravity equations. As I have shown, their own equations—which go back centuries—were already telling them this.
Postscript 2, October, 2011: Those who have proposed charge or electromagnetic solutions to cosmological problems have been shouted down for almost a century, assured by the mainstream that E/M plays no part in the math of celestial mechanics. Unfortunately, data from their own colleagues has long conflicted with this assurance, and it is conflicting louder and more often with each passing year. As just one example, I send you to this new paper [ArXiv** and AjP] by researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory, who have obtained “for the first time, a direct determination of a galactic-scale electric current (~ 3 × 1018 A) , and its direction ? positive away from the AGN. Our analysis strongly supports a model where the jet energy flow is mainly electromagnetic.”