Fast Neutral Hydrogen Detected Coming From The Moon

[flyingcloud]

Fast Neutral Hydrogen Detected Coming From The Moon
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 124948.htm

NASA's Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) spacecraft has made the first observations of very fast hydrogen atoms coming from the moon, following decades of speculation and searching for their existence
During spacecraft commissioning, the IBEX team turned on the IBEX-Hi instrument, built primarily by Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) and the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which measures atoms with speeds from about half a million to 2.5 million miles per hour. Its companion sensor, IBEX-Lo, built by Lockheed Martin, the University of New Hampshire, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and the University of Bern in Switzerland, measures atoms with speeds from about one hundred thousand to 1.5 million mph.

"Just after we got IBEX-Hi turned on, the moon happened to pass right through its field of view, and there they were," says Dr. David J. McComas, IBEX principal investigator and assistant vice president of the SwRI Space Science and Engineering Division. "The instrument lit up with a clear signal of the neutral atoms being detected as they backscattered from the moon."

The solar wind, the supersonic stream of charged particles that flows out from the sun, moves out into space in every direction at speeds of about a million mph. The Earth's strong magnetic field shields our planet from the solar wind. The moon, with its relatively weak magnetic field, has no such protection, causing the solar wind to slam onto the moon's sunward side.

From its vantage point in space, IBEX sees about half of the moon -- one quarter of it is dark and faces the nightside (away from the sun), while the other quarter faces the dayside (toward the sun). Solar wind particles impact only the dayside, where most of them are embedded in the lunar surface, while some scatter off in different directions. The scattered ones mostly become neutral atoms in this reflection process by picking up electrons from the lunar surface.
The IBEX team estimates that only about 10 percent of the solar wind ions reflect off the sunward side of the moon as neutral atoms, while the remaining 90 percent are embedded in the lunar surface. Characteristics of the lunar surface, such as dust, craters and rocks, play a role in determining the percentage of particles that become embedded and the percentage of neutral particles, as well as their direction of travel, that scatter.

McComas says the results also shed light on the "recycling" process undertaken by particles throughout the solar system and beyond. The solar wind and other charged particles impact dust and larger objects as they travel through space, where they backscatter and are reprocessed as neutral atoms. These atoms can travel long distances before they are stripped of their electrons and become ions and the complicated process begins again.

The combined scattering and neutralization processes now observed at the moon have implications for interactions with objects across the solar system, such as asteroids, Kuiper Belt objects and other moons. The plasma-surface interactions occurring within protostellar nebula, the region of space that forms around planets and stars -- as well as exoplanets, planets around other stars -- also can be inferred.

IBEX's primary mission is to observe and map the complex interactions occurring at the edge of the solar system, where the million miles per hour solar wind runs into the interstellar material from the rest of the galaxy. The spacecraft carries the most sensitive neutral atom detectorsever flown in space, enabling researchers to not only measure particle energy, but also to make precise images of where they are coming from.

Around the end of the summer, the team will release the spacecraft's first all-sky map showing the energetic processes occurring at the edge of the solar system. The team will not comment until the image is complete, but McComas hints, "It doesn't look like any of the models."

IBEX is the latest in NASA's series of low-cost, rapidly developed Small Explorers spacecraft. The IBEX mission was developed by SwRI with a national and international team of partners. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center manages the Explorers Program for NASA's Science Mission Directorate

so ions /plasma in the solar wind hit the moon and pick up electrons and bounce back into space as neutral atoms of hydrogen

the magnetosphere/ionosphere of the earth sheilds the planet from the same process essentially conserving earth's electrons?

so the moon is charged one way and the earth the opposite?

still trying to grasp the ramifications of this process

but

it doesn't look like any of the (standard)sic models

....

[keeha]

He calls it 'recycling' but he describes EU:

McComas says the results also shed light on the "recycling" process undertaken by particles throughout the solar system and beyond. The solar wind and other charged particles impact dust and larger objects as they travel through space, where they backscatter and are reprocessed as neutral atoms. These atoms can travel long distances before they are stripped of their electrons and become ions and the complicated process begins again.

[Lloyd]

* Thornhill seems to say that stars and their planets are positively charged.
Stars' interiors are positively charged. The sun is positively charged.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=1dqzp30f
Planets' interiors are positively charged.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=xewq47rt
* The solar wind surely would help maintain the positive charge on the planets and moons. 90% of solar wind ions get embedded in the moon's surface, don't they?
* Stars form within quasars and galaxies. Galaxies evolve from quasars. Quasars form within galaxies and are shot out like bullets and they start out positively charged. Magnetic fields keep much of the negative electrons from going out with the quasars initially, but jets of electrons follow out after quasars later.
* Planets and moons come from the positively charged interiors of stars. Gas giant planets also produce smaller planets and moons from the former's interiors.
* So apparently electrical process separate charges at all scales and the celestial objects begin highly positively charged and gradually become less charged as they encounter electrons from the interstellar and intergalactic electric currents.
* Feel free to point out any flaws in this line of thought.

[KickLaBuka]

* Thornhill seems to say that stars and their planets are positively charged.
Stars' interiors are positively charged. The sun is positively charged.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=1dqzp30f

Stars interiors are hot plasma. Charge separation is forced due to ionization energies, and don't forget about the neutron repulsion due to electrostatic discharge at the center. At that temperature, ionization is second nature. Neutral atoms cannot and do not occur at those temperatures. H+ (positive, proton without the electron) drags electrons away from the sun and are bounded only when the heat energy is less than 13.6eV

Planets' interiors are positively charged.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=xewq47rt

All of them? Are you sure?

* The solar wind surely would help maintain the positive charge on the planets and moons. 90% of solar wind ions get embedded in the moon's surface, don't they?

This is strictly my opinion, but this statement seems to mislead me. The sun is pretty big and the moon is a pretty small glove to catch 90%.

* Stars form within quasars and galaxies. Galaxies evolve from quasars.

This is a contradiction.

Quasars form within galaxies and are shot out like bullets and they start out positively charged.

This is a contradiction.

Magnetic fields keep much of the negative electrons from going out with the quasars initially, but jets of electrons follow out after quasars later.

I don't think it's appropriate to extrapolate time if you aren't really really sure.

* Planets and moons come from the positively charged interiors of stars.

I agree, from a supernova explosion. The heavier elements are formed when groups of Neutrons from the core are shot out along with the protons. The electrons follow and elements are formed. This is my opinion.

Gas giant planets also produce smaller planets and moons from the former's interiors.

no evidence of planets producing planets.

* So apparently electrical process separate charges at all scales

Indeed.

and the celestial objects begin highly positively charged and gradually become less charged as they encounter electrons from the interstellar and intergalactic electric currents.

You can't neglect heating due to nuclear fusion and cooling due to heat transfer. Not just positive/negative. I'm sorry if this is not "purely" EU, but it is what it is.

* Feel free to point out any flaws in this line of thought.

These are my opinions, and I think they are right. I would in turn be eager to have flaws pointed out to me as well.

[Lloyd]

L: Planets' interiors are positively charged. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=xewq47rt
K: All of them? Are you sure?
* Do you want to ask Thornhill? He's the one I quoted.

L: The solar wind surely would help maintain the positive charge on the planets and moons. 90% of solar wind ions get embedded in the moon's surface, don't they?
K: This is strictly my opinion, but this statement seems to mislead me. The sun is pretty big and the moon is a pretty small glove to catch 90%.
* I meant 90% of the solar wind ions that hit the moon get embedded in the moon's surface.

L: Stars form within quasars and galaxies. Galaxies evolve from quasars.
K: This is a contradiction.
* Quasars form within galaxies. They start out small within galactic nuclei. They get shot out in pairs in opposite directions, usually via polar jets. They grow as they move away and they become companion galaxies gradually. Stars can form during the quasar phase and also during the galaxy phase.

L: Magnetic fields keep much of the negative electrons from going out with the quasars initially, but jets of electrons follow out after quasars later.
K: I don't think it's appropriate to extrapolate time if you aren't really really sure.
* Thornhill and Arp seem to be real sure of most of this process.

L: Planets and moons come from the positively charged interiors of stars.
K: I agree, from a supernova explosion. The heavier elements are formed when groups of Neutrons from the core are shot out along with the protons. The electrons follow and elements are formed. This is my opinion.
* That may be Oliver Manuel's opinion too. But Thornhill et al consider that so-called supernovae are merely electrical fissioning of large stars under electrical stress into 2 smaller stars with larger surface areas that can tolerate the same amount of electrical stress. Most of the mass of the original star remains in the 2 smaller stars. Only a small amount is blown away.

L: Gas giant planets also produce smaller planets and moons from the former's interiors.
K: no evidence of planets producing planets.
* -that you know of, but the statement is based on known facts about behavior of plasma as well as reports by the ancients that Venus apparently formed out of Saturn after Saturn went nova.

K: You can't neglect heating due to nuclear fusion and cooling due to heat transfer. Not just positive/negative. I'm sorry if this is not "purely" EU, but it is what it is.
* Fusion does not occur sifnificantly within stars or planets, but mainly only on the surfaces of stars mostly, due to electrical discharges on the surfaces. Most of the heat is from the discharges. Have you looked at Thornhill's site etc?

[nick c]

hi KikiLaBuka,

I would like to make a few points.

The solar wind surely would help maintain the positive charge on the planets and moons. 90% of solar wind ions get embedded in the moon's surface, don't they?

This is strictly my opinion, but this statement seems to mislead me. The sun is pretty big and the moon is a pretty small glove to catch 90%.

I am sure Lloyd would like to reword this statement, as I don't think he meant 90% of the total of all the ions emitted by the Sun become embedded in the moon's surface, but rather 90% of the ions that arrive at the moon become embedded in the surface. That is the way I read it. [Of course the Moon is a pretty small target and ions would be traveling throughout the solar system.]

* Stars form within quasars and galaxies. Galaxies evolve from quasars.

This is a contradiction.

No contradiction at all! Quasars are embryonic galaxies, as quasars evolve into galaxies star formation takes place. Star formation would also take place in a mature galaxy such as the Milky Way or M31 in Andromeda, as long as there are molecular clouds that can be compressed in the z pinch process by galactic scale Birkeland currents.

Quasars form within galaxies and are shot out like bullets and they start out positively charged.

This is a contradiction.

Again, no contradiction. Quasars are baby galaxies, when they grow up they become galaxies and might in turn have their own quasars. A biological analogy: an animal can give birth to an infant, which in time can become an adult and give birth to an infant.
My own opinion is that the large, major galaxies are composites resulting from mergers of quasars and other small galaxies.

* Planets and moons come from the positively charged interiors of stars.

I agree, from a supernova explosion.

Supernova explosions are rare, whereas planets and moons are probably quite common. Our solar system has many such bodies.
Are each of them the core of a supernova?
In the EU star formation can take place through a z pinch effect, or, through a fissioning process, whereby a star splits into two unequal parts in order to accomodate electrical stress by increasing the available surface area:

So, to reduce the current density it is experiencing, an electrically stressed, blue-white star may explosively fission into two or more stars. This provides an increase in total surface area and so results in a reduced level of current density on the (new) stars' surfaces. Each of two new (equal sized) stars will experience only 80% of the previous current density level and so both will jump to new locations farther to the lower-right in the HR diagram.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

This fissioning process can be marked by a nova like outburst, a supernova would be a similar process but on a much larger scale.
When this process takes place on a smaller scale, say with a brown dwarf, the smaller piece can be an Earth type of body. Furthermore the distinction between a brown dwarf and a gas giant is dependent on the current received, a gas giant such as Jupiter, traveling alone in interstellar space would appear as a small brown dwarf, its' extensive plasmasphere operating in glow mode.
See: [url2=http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=pca22stj]Planet Birthing[/url2]

You can't neglect heating due to nuclear fusion and cooling due to heat transfer. Not just positive/negative. I'm sorry if this is not "purely" EU, but it is what it is.

ES theory discards the need for a nuclear furnace at the core for stars. Nuclear fusion reactions do take place on stars, right in view, on the surface:

Fusion in the Double Layer
The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core). The result of this fusion process are the "metals" that give rise to absorption lines in the Sun's spectrum. Traces of sixty eight of the ninety two natural elements are found in the Sun's atmosphere. Most of the radio frequency noise emitted by the Sun emanates from this region. Radio noise is a well known property of DLs. The electrical power available to be delivered to the plasma at any point is the product of the E-field (Volts per meter) times current density (Amps per square meter). This multiplication operation yields Watts per cubic meter. The current density is relatively constant over the height of the photospheric / chromospheric layers. However, the E-field is by far the strongest at the center of the DL. Nuclear fusion takes a great deal of power - and that power is available in the DL.
It is also observed that the neutrino flux from the Sun varies inversely with sunspot number. This is expected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is z-pinch produced fusion which is occurring in the double layer - and sunspots are locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

With regard to the standard model of nuclear fusion at the core of stars:

Whether or not Juergens was completely correct in his assertion that the Sun is totally powered by external electrical excitation is really not the most important point of the ES hypothesis. What is important is that all of the phenomena we observe on and above the surface of the Sun are clearly well-known effects in electric plasma. This is true no matter how the Sun gets its power.

The ES model predicts and explains all these phenomena in quite logical ways. In contrast, the standard model does not predict their existence and offers no natural explanations for why they occur. Mainstream astronomers dismiss these phenomena as being of secondary importance – temporary glitches for which ad hoc explanations will eventually be developed sometime in the future. In reality they are loose threads, which, when pulled, unravel the entire flimsy fabric of the standard model.

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 2740#p2740

nick c

[KickLaBuka]

Wow, thank you both for the debate. This is long awaited and highly appreciated!

Do you want to ask Thornhill.

Yes.

* Quasars form within galaxies. They start out small within galactic nuclei. They get shot out in pairs in opposite directions, usually via polar jets. They grow as they move away and they become companion galaxies gradually. Stars can form during the quasar phase and also during the galaxy phase.

* Thornhill and Arp seem to be real sure of most of this process.

I would like to discuss this further, after my alternative is considered and discarded for good reason.

supernovae are merely electrical fissioning of large stars under electrical stress into 2 smaller stars with larger surface areas that can tolerate the same amount of electrical stress.

I agree.

Only a small amount is blown away.

I disagree. Polonium is only possible by a nova explosion, and the radioactive decay dates the sun and planets (all of which suggest a birth at the same time, 5billion years ago). Oliver Manuel seems to be right on this, but I would like to know more about the ancient records and their suggestions.

Venus apparently formed out of Saturn after Saturn went nova.

Gripping stuff! Again, thanks! More discussion! INPUT (-number five)!

Fusion does not occur sifnificantly within stars or planets, but mainly only on the surfaces of stars mostly, due to electrical discharges on the surfaces. Most of the heat is from the discharges. Have you looked at Thornhill's site etc?

Yes and no. I am satisfied with O. Manuel’s suggestions about the sun.

Supernova explosions are rare, whereas planets and moons are probably quite common. Our solar system has many such bodies.
Are each of them the core of a supernova?

Planets and moons are probably common? This is a bit wishy to me. Is there any evidence that planets and moons are not ONLY revolving around Type I stars? If they have been shot out of orbit, and occur as dark or glow mode, that is fine too. But why can’t they be borne ONLY from a Type II to Type I Supernova explosion? (note that the type II to type I supernove suggestion is copyrighted as my own, as noted on and around page 35 of my book).

ES theory discards the need for a nuclear furnace at the core for stars. Nuclear fusion reactions do take place on stars, right in view, on the surface:

This "selective discarding" is strangely familiar to the standard model of the sun; but I say this in the ES defense.

The result of this fusion process are the "metals" that give rise to absorption lines in the Sun's spectrum. Traces of sixty eight of the ninety two natural elements are found in the Sun's atmosphere.

This is where I diverge from everyone, and I would like corrections. My book does not specifically say this, but it is my intention. Here goes: The collection of neutrons and protons to signify these “metals” are forced to roll by their interactions with each other and with the electrons by which they are shielded (but not bound). This rolling causes emission which signifies these metals existence. But a Neutron core with a mainly Proton body should signify the same thing when groups of these protons and neutrons are “rolling” around causing the “like” emission.

not the most important point of the ES hypothesis

Absolutely correct. The charge of the sun is the most important part of the ES model, and I fully agree that it is this charge and the spinning of the stars which in turn bind them together. This agrees with the ES model, except that I only partially agree with regard to heat and luminosity. Again, I refer to O. Manuel’s energy equations which are listed on page 16 of my book.

The ES model predicts and explains all these phenomena in quite logical ways. In contrast, the standard model does not predict their existence and offers no natural explanations for why they occur.

I suggest that both models are wrong; except that the ES model is way more logical. I am suggestiong a paradigm shift by both the Electric Sun and the Standard Model.

[Lloyd]

* Kick, if you want to contact Wal Thornhill, you can look for his email on his website, http://holoscience.com. It used to be listed there. Otherwise, you can ask Dave Talbott or Michael Gmirkin et al to forward your message to him. But it's better to first read his website. You can do a Google search on his site, saying: site:holoscience.com nova charge planet etc.
* You said:

Polonium is only possible by a nova explosion, and the radioactive decay dates the sun and planets (all of which suggest a birth at the same time, 5 billion years ago).

* That's just an assumption based on the theory of uniformitarianism. But the universe is not uniformitarian. It involves major catastrophes, which disrupt uniformities. The decay rates of radioactive atoms varies under different conditions, probably including electrical stress. Uranium and Thorium take so long to decay that they're practically stable elements. If the electrical stress on the Earth were more or less, they'd probably be more or less stable and so their half-lives would change. If they formed during a nova event or the like when their half-lives were very short, they would have begun to decay rapidly. Then, as the electrical stress of the Earth returned to normal, the half-lives would have changed to their present values.
* Check out these:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... fossil.htm
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=site%3At ... I_jJwIhkws
* I gotta go for now.

[frankiben123]

wow....nice post.....

sales tracking software

[nick c]

Polonium is only possible by a nova explosion, and the radioactive decay dates the sun and planets (all of which suggest a birth at the same time, 5 billion years ago).

In addition to Lloyd's comments see the thread:
[url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... tive+decay]Nuclear Decay Varies With Earth Sun Distance[/url2]

nick c