'Welease Wosetta!'

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby Rossim » Sun Aug 03, 2014 2:45 pm

At first I saw the black dot in the middle and thought I was seeing a vent in the nucleus! I had to slow my pulse and read the caption that stated the black figure in the center was an artifact of the camera. While I'm an EU supporter, as a scientist you have to retain the idea that we could all be completely wrong. It's a concept which most of mainstream astrophysics has forgotten. If the comet really turned out to be a dirty snowball sublimating in the heat of the sun, in my mind the direct failure to EU theory would be so severe that I'd have to carefully reconsider everything.

I feel the Rosetta mission is really a make or break prediction of the EU paradigm. What do you think?
Rossim
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:09 am

Rossim wrote:At first I saw the black dot in the middle and thought I was seeing a vent in the nucleus! I had to slow my pulse and read the caption that stated the black figure in the center was an artifact of the camera. While I'm an EU supporter, as a scientist you have to retain the idea that we could all be completely wrong. It's a concept which most of mainstream astrophysics has forgotten. If the comet really turned out to be a dirty snowball sublimating in the heat of the sun, in my mind the direct failure to EU theory would be so severe that I'd have to carefully reconsider everything.

I feel the Rosetta mission is really a make or break prediction of the EU paradigm. What do you think?


No because comets have already been shown for years to NOT be dirty snowballs. That theory is long dead. Comet nuclei are dry.

Please watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34wtt2EUToo
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby Rossim » Mon Aug 04, 2014 8:13 am

viscount aero wrote:
Rossim wrote:At first I saw the black dot in the middle and thought I was seeing a vent in the nucleus! I had to slow my pulse and read the caption that stated the black figure in the center was an artifact of the camera. While I'm an EU supporter, as a scientist you have to retain the idea that we could all be completely wrong. It's a concept which most of mainstream astrophysics has forgotten. If the comet really turned out to be a dirty snowball sublimating in the heat of the sun, in my mind the direct failure to EU theory would be so severe that I'd have to carefully reconsider everything.

I feel the Rosetta mission is really a make or break prediction of the EU paradigm. What do you think?


No because comets have already been shown for years to NOT be dirty snowballs. That theory is long dead. Comet nuclei are dry.

Please watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34wtt2EUToo


I assure you, I've watched every video on the Thunderbolts channel. Clearly the majority of the world's top scientists have been fooled by misinterpretation of data and bias. My point was that EU theory completely relies on this mission as comets are one of the most easily detectable differences between the mainstream and the electrical perspectives. My only concern would be the failure of the mission due to electrical stresses which are unrecognized and the sublimating snowball continues.
Rossim
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:46 am

So which model will be found to best fit with observation?
Image
The shapes of asteroids are being determined with ever-increasing accuracy, and their surfaces imaged in ever-increasing detail, but scientists can only guess at their interiors. To illustrate the point, a high-resolution radar image10 of the Earth-crossing asteroid 4179 Toutatis is shown in a. Is the interior of Toutatis a monolith or a multi-component structure, such as the fragmented aggregate shown in (b), contact binary (c) or 'rubble pile' (d)? Housen and colleagues' model1 of asteroid 253 Mathilde suggests that some asteroids may be 'super' rubble piles — that is, they are so highly porous that craters form by compaction without ejection of any material.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... a0_F1.html
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby paladin17 » Mon Aug 04, 2014 2:48 pm

So what do you guys think will happen?
Should we await some discharges?

On August 6th Rosetta would be only 100 km away from the comet.
In november it would be 2.5 km away and would send Philae lander towards the weird thing.
Since the coma (visually) is some 10 km (or even more) in diameter, I think some kind of destructive interaction via the coma particles is certainly possible.

What kind of depresses me is that there really is equipment installed on the probe that can certainly give a lot of info on plasma, electricity, magnetism etc.: firstly RPC and ROMAP (that last thing was already used, e.g., in studying of Mars' magnetic field) - and we don't have access to the data from it.
I tried to e-mail all those engineers and institutions who have had developed it and who are running it now, asking are those things even working (since there was some short-circuiting in RPC already a couple of months ago) - no effect thus far.
User avatar
paladin17
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby Rossim » Mon Aug 04, 2014 5:52 pm

paladin17 wrote:So what do you guys think will happen?
Should we await some discharges?

On August 6th Rosetta would be only 100 km away from the comet.
In november it would be 2.5 km away and would send Philae lander towards the weird thing.
Since the coma (visually) is some 10 km (or even more) in diameter, I think some kind of destructive interaction via the coma particles is certainly possible.

What kind of depresses me is that there really is equipment installed on the probe that can certainly give a lot of info on plasma, electricity, magnetism etc.: firstly RPC and ROMAP (that last thing was already used, e.g., in studying of Mars' magnetic field) - and we don't have access to the data from it.
I tried to e-mail all those engineers and institutions who have had developed it and who are running it now, asking are those things even working (since there was some short-circuiting in RPC already a couple of months ago) - no effect thus far.


The coma is about 150km in diameter so the engineers should get some very interesting data much sooner than November. I feel the future images alone will provide enough confusion that the other instruments will be required to follow up.
Rossim
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby viscount aero » Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:10 am

Rossim wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Rossim wrote:At first I saw the black dot in the middle and thought I was seeing a vent in the nucleus! I had to slow my pulse and read the caption that stated the black figure in the center was an artifact of the camera. While I'm an EU supporter, as a scientist you have to retain the idea that we could all be completely wrong. It's a concept which most of mainstream astrophysics has forgotten. If the comet really turned out to be a dirty snowball sublimating in the heat of the sun, in my mind the direct failure to EU theory would be so severe that I'd have to carefully reconsider everything.

I feel the Rosetta mission is really a make or break prediction of the EU paradigm. What do you think?


No because comets have already been shown for years to NOT be dirty snowballs. That theory is long dead. Comet nuclei are dry.

Please watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34wtt2EUToo


I assure you, I've watched every video on the Thunderbolts channel. Clearly the majority of the world's top scientists have been fooled by misinterpretation of data and bias. My point was that EU theory completely relies on this mission as comets are one of the most easily detectable differences between the mainstream and the electrical perspectives. My only concern would be the failure of the mission due to electrical stresses which are unrecognized and the sublimating snowball continues.


I must not understand. EU theory is not completely relying on this mission. Where are you getting that from?
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby Rossim » Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:58 am

viscount aero wrote:
I must not understand. EU theory is not completely relying on this mission. Where are you getting that from?


The comet is a great example of two different theories having completely different predictions. Mainstream says the dirty snowball is slowly sublimating in the heat of the sun, where EU says that the voltage potential of the comet increases as it nears the sun, resulting in a variety of electrical phenomena which aid in the discharging process. That theory makes sense to me, since the solar system is filled with the charged particles of the sun's plasma and the density of those particles are different.

Now my point is that if cometary behavior was NOT due to electrical stresses and instead it was either a dirty snowball (which I highly doubt) or something else not thought of yet, then EU theory would lose much of its foundation because the ambient plasma and its forces would not be significant. However, the other side is true as well. If the comet does show undeniable electrical activity eroding its surface, then EU theory would have an enormous advantage in explaining the observations.
Rossim
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby viscount aero » Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:23 am

Rossim wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
I must not understand. EU theory is not completely relying on this mission. Where are you getting that from?


The comet is a great example of two different theories having completely different predictions. Mainstream says the dirty snowball is slowly sublimating in the heat of the sun, where EU says that the voltage potential of the comet increases as it nears the sun, resulting in a variety of electrical phenomena which aid in the discharging process. That theory makes sense to me, since the solar system is filled with the charged particles of the sun's plasma and the density of those particles are different.

Now my point is that if cometary behavior was NOT due to electrical stresses and instead it was either a dirty snowball (which I highly doubt) or something else not thought of yet, then EU theory would lose much of its foundation because the ambient plasma and its forces would not be significant. However, the other side is true as well. If the comet does show undeniable electrical activity eroding its surface, then EU theory would have an enormous advantage in explaining the observations.


I still don't understand you. Comets are proven, and have been proven via observation YEARS AGO, to not be dirty "snowballs."

This is just another mission that will make observations of a coma and relay that it isn't a "snowball" of any kind. Comets have never been observed to be icy bodies. Not ever. So I don't see your point.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby Rossim » Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:43 am

viscount aero wrote:
Rossim wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
I must not understand. EU theory is not completely relying on this mission. Where are you getting that from?


The comet is a great example of two different theories having completely different predictions. Mainstream says the dirty snowball is slowly sublimating in the heat of the sun, where EU says that the voltage potential of the comet increases as it nears the sun, resulting in a variety of electrical phenomena which aid in the discharging process. That theory makes sense to me, since the solar system is filled with the charged particles of the sun's plasma and the density of those particles are different.

Now my point is that if cometary behavior was NOT due to electrical stresses and instead it was either a dirty snowball (which I highly doubt) or something else not thought of yet, then EU theory would lose much of its foundation because the ambient plasma and its forces would not be significant. However, the other side is true as well. If the comet does show undeniable electrical activity eroding its surface, then EU theory would have an enormous advantage in explaining the observations.


I still don't understand you. Comets are proven, and have been proven via observation YEARS AGO, to not be dirty "snowballs."

This is just another mission that will make observations of a coma and relay that it isn't a "snowball" of any kind. Comets have never been observed to be icy bodies. Not ever. So I don't see your point.


Well I'm not sure if this is news to you, but about 95% of the scientific community believes that comets are bodies of ice and dirt and believes the electrical perspectives of mostly anything in astrophysics are crackpot theories and pseudoscience. While all five of the comets visited by spacecraft have had little or no surface ice, it is still assumed by the majority that we're observing an icy body covered (conveniently) in dirt and dust. But you cannot prove the EU model is right without simultaneously proving the current idea is entirely wrong.

You can create the SAFIRE experiment of an electric sun and a stubborn astrophysicist will say, "So what?" But riding along a comet and watching it discharge through the sun's denser environment will make much more of an impact in the scientific community. Ignoring what the majority thinks isn't going to jump start a scientific revolution.
Rossim
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby nick c » Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:27 pm

I think that what Rossim is referring to, is that in the EU view visits to comets provide an up close and personal visit to a cosmic electrical event. This is in contrast to mainstream theory.
Wal Thornhill wrote the following in regard to another space probes visit to another comet, but the same logic applies.....
There is more riding on this mission than may be apparent from regular news sources. At issue is the assumption of an electrically neutral universe, upon which every conventional astronomical theory rests.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-deep- ... et-theory/
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2234
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby viscount aero » Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:34 pm

Rossim wrote:Well I'm not sure if this is news to you, but about 95% of the scientific community believes that comets are bodies of ice and dirt and believes the electrical perspectives of mostly anything in astrophysics are crackpot theories and pseudoscience. While all five of the comets visited by spacecraft have had little or no surface ice, it is still assumed by the majority that we're observing an icy body covered (conveniently) in dirt and dust. But you cannot prove the EU model is right without simultaneously proving the current idea is entirely wrong.

Yes that isn't news to anyone on the forum. It's old news :) Comets are bone dry asteroids, proven by Stardust to have been created in molten conditions. Yet this is lost and ignored.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby Rossim » Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:26 pm

nick c wrote:I think that what Rossim is referring to, is that in the EU view visits to comets provide an up close and personal visit to a cosmic electrical event. This is in contrast to mainstream theory.
Wal Thornhill wrote the following in regard to another space probes visit to another comet, but the same logic applies.....
There is more riding on this mission than may be apparent from regular news sources. At issue is the assumption of an electrically neutral universe, upon which every conventional astronomical theory rests.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-deep- ... et-theory/


Yes, the last sentence of Thornhill's quote describes what I was saying.

viscount aero wrote:
Rossim wrote:Well I'm not sure if this is news to you, but about 95% of the scientific community believes that comets are bodies of ice and dirt and believes the electrical perspectives of mostly anything in astrophysics are crackpot theories and pseudoscience. While all five of the comets visited by spacecraft have had little or no surface ice, it is still assumed by the majority that we're observing an icy body covered (conveniently) in dirt and dust. But you cannot prove the EU model is right without simultaneously proving the current idea is entirely wrong.

Yes that isn't news to anyone on the forum. It's old news :) Comets are bone dry asteroids, proven by Stardust to have been created in molten conditions. Yet this is lost and ignored.


Well you can't be so driven on the EU theory that you become biased yourself, or you start to rely on faith in a theory. Water ice HAS been detected in very small amounts on the surface of Tempel 1 so you can see how that can be interpreted as a tiny strand of confirmation of a water ice comet, though it can be better explained by hydroxyl forming water in the coma left some on the surface. The observations which Rosetta will make will be undeniable in confirming the electric comet ideas.
Rossim
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby paladin17 » Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:33 pm

Okay, they're preparing some sort of a live transmission, I guess (it's still picture there at the moment).
It's supposed to start at 8.00 GMT (9.25 from now).
Maybe we'll see something, since today we had only some schedule from them.
By the way, a "telemetry data flow" is scheduled to start at 8 GMT.
User avatar
paladin17
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby viscount aero » Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:30 pm

Rossim wrote:Well you can't be so driven on the EU theory that you become biased yourself, or you start to rely on faith in a theory. Water ice HAS been detected in very small amounts on the surface of Tempel 1 so you can see how that can be interpreted as a tiny strand of confirmation of a water ice comet, though it can be better explained by hydroxyl forming water in the coma left some on the surface. The observations which Rosetta will make will be undeniable in confirming the electric comet ideas.


I see what you're saying but you can't separate faith from theory ever. This forum is biased to EU theory, not the Standard Model. But people are open to being corrected here in general. If EU cannot explain something then I will not defend it. Most of the cosmos is unexplainable. It is my view that the Universe will never be explainable. Only glimpses of things will ever be known. But I assure you the Standard Model is fake. Comets are not icy bodies in general. They're more like rocks than chunks of ice mixed with rock. The volatiles coming from the comets are more than likely due to interaction of the coma with the solar wind forming a hydrochemical reaction, ie, hydroxyls. Any pure water will be created in situ and not from it being shed or erupted from a comet's interior.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron