'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 seasmith » Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:06 pm

Dahl, Nice video. The electrical effects are impressive, even at 1G.
Dusty comets have even better ratios of electric light to grounding gravity, wether in local arcing modes or whole-body transients, the electricity is proportionally greater than gravity, One side is freezing cold and the other radiation hot for electro-thermal current flows. Charge is being widely recycled before Rossetta's very eyes and is apt to erupt anywhere, while any fine material is transported with ease through the enveloping field. Wish they could photograph the full frequency aurora.
Expect the rocks to slide soon. ;)
seasmith
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Receding margins via electrical transport

Unread postby dahlenaz » Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:08 pm

dahlenaz wrote:You will see in the video (dahlenaz07 on youtube)
d..z

...


The video mentioned above is now uploaded and At this link

d..z

...
User avatar
dahlenaz
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:58 am
Location: SD Arizona

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby Bomb20 » Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:10 am

I conclude that dark mode dischacharges could erode and transport material on comets. This is not excluding glow mode and arc mode discharges but could explain that some expectations of TB followers were not fullfilled, right?
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby dahlenaz » Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:40 am

Bomb20 wrote:I conclude that dark mode dischacharges could erode and transport material on comets. This is not excluding glow mode and arc mode discharges but could explain that some expectations of TB followers were not fullfilled, right?


I was not aware of expectations not being fulfilled,,, but,, as you stateed,, other modes of discharge
are still on-deck and to be watched for as best we can.. A sustained glow or arc discharge are manifestations
which have higher requirements than a dark-mode discharge, (or so i would think), so our task
of catching the action with photos my be a bit frustrating...

ESA's dilagent observations for surface changes needs to honored at every oportunity...

d..z

...
User avatar
dahlenaz
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:58 am
Location: SD Arizona

Re: Receding margins via electrical transport

Unread postby dahlenaz » Wed Sep 23, 2015 3:34 pm

dahlenaz wrote:snip
-re-deposition of material to nearby areas occurrs rather fast
but that is less important than migration of margins
by invisible dark-mode electrical exchange.

The white surface was not a conductor and this experiment was done at high humidity..

d..z

...


I really shouldn't minimize the importance of the re-location of electro-migrated material
to specific locations on the surface.. The combination of the two factors, where seen as the
appearance of freshly deposited fine material on comet 67P-C/G, should close the book
on at least one active mechanism on the comet... Central re-depotion of material is just one
of the numerous places to expect fresh accumulation. Also look for sharp directional-referencing
deposits, as mentioned previously, and deposition to other excavations..

Image
Larger Image

Next session:

I placed a video shot at 120 fps at this link.
It shows quite well the activity around the probe and the re-location of material.

d..z

...
User avatar
dahlenaz
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:58 am
Location: SD Arizona

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Sep 24, 2015 6:32 am

The water mantra is still going on..

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space ... -ice_cycle

They see the traces of water on the surface as evidence for water under the surface.
The model shows a cycle of heating the interior of the comet.
If their model is correct, then according to common physics the comet should soon explode.

Why are they so blind for the obvious electrochemical processes? (caused by sun's solar wind)
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:27 am

Zyxzevn wrote:The water mantra is still going on..

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space ... -ice_cycle

They see the traces of water on the surface as evidence for water under the surface.
The model shows a cycle of heating the interior of the comet.
If their model is correct, then according to common physics the comet should soon explode.

Why are they so blind for the obvious electrochemical processes? (caused by sun's solar wind)


They're selectively blind.

They admit to it on the Moon (where they have found traces of water ice and attribute it to radiolysis) but stop there. They don't take that idea to comets. They can't apply the concept to comets because they have made too many tv shows and official reports that concede that comets have "seeded the Earth's oceans". And it would force them to recant their Oort Cloud theory and subsequent spinoff theories. They need comets to be ancient, icy, unchanged, remnants of the "early solar system" ("leftovers" from a nebular collapse that cannot possibly have occurred upon further scrutiny). Comets cannot be anything else but what they need them to be so they ignore other ideas and evidence that shows that comets are dry and have been exposed to extremely high heat akin to a blast furnace. None of that will matter even when more comets are encountered that reveal contradictory evidence to their claims.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:36 am

viscount aero wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote:The water mantra is still going on..

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space ... -ice_cycle

They see the traces of water on the surface as evidence for water under the surface.
The model shows a cycle of heating the interior of the comet.
If their model is correct, then according to common physics the comet should soon explode.

Why are they so blind for the obvious electrochemical processes? (caused by sun's solar wind)


They're selectively blind.

They admit to it on the Moon (where they have found traces of water ice and attribute it to radiolysis) but stop there. They don't take that idea to comets. They can't apply the concept to comets because they have made too many tv shows and official reports that concede that comets have "seeded the Earth's oceans". And it would force them to recant their Oort Cloud theory and subsequent spinoff theories. They need comets to be ancient, icy, unchanged, remnants of the "early solar system" ("leftovers" from a nebular collapse that cannot possibly have occurred upon further scrutiny). Comets cannot be anything else but what they need them to be so they ignore other ideas and evidence that shows that comets are dry and have been exposed to extremely high heat akin to a blast furnace. None of that will matter even when more comets are encountered that reveal contradictory evidence to their claims.


Their pride won't allow it. Geoffrey Burbidge told Mr. Arp that in a conversation concerning why they won't give up Big Bang Theory. It doesn't matter how wrong it is anymore, their egos are too inflated.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby FS3 » Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:47 am

As the FS3 has warned repeatedly of the ESA and its taxfunded perpetrators they are stonewalling again and trying to hide the obvious...

Zyxzevn wrote:The water mantra is still going on..

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space ... -ice_cycle

They see the traces of water on the surface as evidence for water under the surface.
The model shows a cycle of heating the interior of the comet.
If their model is correct, then according to common physics the comet should soon explode.

Why are they so blind for the obvious electrochemical processes? (caused by sun's solar wind)


You just have to look at the abstract and what it states in its very first sentence:
Observations of cometary nuclei have revealed a very limited amount of surface water ice, which is insufficient to explain the observed water outgassing…


What they did in their latest PR-variation is the washing away of the obvious:

The decline, repeated declaration of bankruptcy and obituary of the cosmological standard model...

FS3
User avatar
FS3
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: Europe

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:56 am

JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote:The water mantra is still going on..

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space ... -ice_cycle

They see the traces of water on the surface as evidence for water under the surface.
The model shows a cycle of heating the interior of the comet.
If their model is correct, then according to common physics the comet should soon explode.

Why are they so blind for the obvious electrochemical processes? (caused by sun's solar wind)


They're selectively blind.

They admit to it on the Moon (where they have found traces of water ice and attribute it to radiolysis) but stop there. They don't take that idea to comets. They can't apply the concept to comets because they have made too many tv shows and official reports that concede that comets have "seeded the Earth's oceans". And it would force them to recant their Oort Cloud theory and subsequent spinoff theories. They need comets to be ancient, icy, unchanged, remnants of the "early solar system" ("leftovers" from a nebular collapse that cannot possibly have occurred upon further scrutiny). Comets cannot be anything else but what they need them to be so they ignore other ideas and evidence that shows that comets are dry and have been exposed to extremely high heat akin to a blast furnace. None of that will matter even when more comets are encountered that reveal contradictory evidence to their claims.


Their pride won't allow it. Geoffrey Burbidge told Mr. Arp that in a conversation concerning why they won't give up Big Bang Theory. It doesn't matter how wrong it is anymore, their egos are too inflated.


I think they actually believe it. Their training and passing on from generation to generation their ideas is well-ingrained and I think the professors and students alike just simply believe it. And because they're authorities on the subjects they thwart anything to challenge their beliefs even when they say otherwise.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby Frantic » Thu Sep 24, 2015 10:43 am

Viscount Aero wrote:I think they actually believe it. Their training and passing on from generation to generation their ideas is well-ingrained and I think the professors and students alike just simply believe it. And because they're authorities on the subjects they thwart anything to challenge their beliefs even when they say otherwise.


Well I have yet to meet one person who doesn't think black holes are proven phenomena. So I tend to agree, even people who have never studied physics, try to cite evidence and prove to me blackholes exist. People think we can measure the distance 13 billion light years out with accuracy, they do not question it, but they will question me for questioning it, when their ability to measure distance is clearly, at best, extremely innacurate, at worse entirely baseless.

This is unrelated but goes along the same line of confused dogma.
I have had many many arguments with people over Darwin who proposed Natural Selection not evolution. Once I get people to concede that this is true, they then say that there isn't a difference between Natural Selection and evolution, and than I say, Please, Read Origin of Species. Read what the man had to say, not what you have been told.

The misconceptions that are out there tend to be widespread and continuously reinforced through the media and education system. It is not that each individual is selective. It is a culture of confused dogma.

I recently tried to explain to people the mathematics required for gravity includes faster than light information, hence the reason space-time was theorized. Of course I gave up, I was met with, nothing travels faster than C. It is a gravity wave that travels at the speed of light. Therefore, if the sun disappeared, the earth would continue in a stable orbit around the sun for about 8 minutes even if the sun were to just blink out of existence. This was the #1 answer on reddit. The proposed question actually brought up the important contradictions in gravity theory, but they continue to think that G and c are sacrosanct, and we can answer any question with certainty.
Frantic
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:40 pm

viscount aero wrote:I think they actually believe it. Their training and passing on from generation to generation their ideas is well-ingrained and I think the professors and students alike just simply believe it. And because they're authorities on the subjects they thwart anything to challenge their beliefs even when they say otherwise.


None the less it is a very strange position to be in. We can see from the outside in and notice how incorrect their claims are, and the perpetuation of their beliefs. Yet, they probably don't realize that because they are inside of those groups, that's all they see.

Its unreal as well is a huge divergence between what popular media wants people to believe is the role of the "scientist", and what pitfalls the "scientist" can fall into according to what his or her environment is. Surround yourself with closed minded, over-educated fools, you become one. Looking at what's been going down over the past couple years makes me glad that I've never attended a scientific conference. I would've gotten sucked into the group think like a feather in a vacuum cleaner.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:04 pm

Frantic wrote:
Viscount Aero wrote:I think they actually believe it. Their training and passing on from generation to generation their ideas is well-ingrained and I think the professors and students alike just simply believe it. And because they're authorities on the subjects they thwart anything to challenge their beliefs even when they say otherwise.


Well I have yet to meet one person who doesn't think black holes are proven phenomena. So I tend to agree, even people who have never studied physics, try to cite evidence and prove to me blackholes exist. People think we can measure the distance 13 billion light years out with accuracy, they do not question it, but they will question me for questioning it, when their ability to measure distance is clearly, at best, extremely innacurate, at worse entirely baseless.

This is unrelated but goes along the same line of confused dogma.
I have had many many arguments with people over Darwin who proposed Natural Selection not evolution. Once I get people to concede that this is true, they then say that there isn't a difference between Natural Selection and evolution, and than I say, Please, Read Origin of Species. Read what the man had to say, not what you have been told.

The misconceptions that are out there tend to be widespread and continuously reinforced through the media and education system. It is not that each individual is selective. It is a culture of confused dogma.

I recently tried to explain to people the mathematics required for gravity includes faster than light information, hence the reason space-time was theorized. Of course I gave up, I was met with, nothing travels faster than C. It is a gravity wave that travels at the speed of light. Therefore, if the sun disappeared, the earth would continue in a stable orbit around the sun for about 8 minutes even if the sun were to just blink out of existence. This was the #1 answer on reddit. The proposed question actually brought up the important contradictions in gravity theory, but they continue to think that G and c are sacrosanct, and we can answer any question with certainty.


Yes Newton's gravitational laws do not require time to exist. The effects are instantaneous, not confined to the snail's crawl of light speed. But people don't understand this.

Also, explain to me the difference you're talking about between evolution and natural selection.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu Sep 24, 2015 6:20 pm

JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:I think they actually believe it. Their training and passing on from generation to generation their ideas is well-ingrained and I think the professors and students alike just simply believe it. And because they're authorities on the subjects they thwart anything to challenge their beliefs even when they say otherwise.


None the less it is a very strange position to be in. We can see from the outside in and notice how incorrect their claims are, and the perpetuation of their beliefs. Yet, they probably don't realize that because they are inside of those groups, that's all they see.

Its unreal as well is a huge divergence between what popular media wants people to believe is the role of the "scientist", and what pitfalls the "scientist" can fall into according to what his or her environment is. Surround yourself with closed minded, over-educated fools, you become one. Looking at what's been going down over the past couple years makes me glad that I've never attended a scientific conference. I would've gotten sucked into the group think like a feather in a vacuum cleaner.


Yes exactly.

Groupthink is precisely the reason.

An example I often cite for scientific pride before a fall, due to unwavering believe in unsubstantiated theory, is the issue of the solar system's alleged "bow shock" boundary region that Voyager 2 failed to discover. Yet they claim knowledge with utmost certainty that the CMBR (cosmic microwave background) is absolutely evidence of the Big Bang. I won't go into the particular falsehoods with that but you get picture. They claim to see into the deep past and into deep distances when they cannot even see within our own solar system.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby querious » Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:02 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:The water mantra is still going on..

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space ... -ice_cycle

They see the traces of water on the surface as evidence for water under the surface.
The model shows a cycle of heating the interior of the comet.
If their model is correct, then according to common physics the comet should soon explode.

Why are they so blind for the obvious electrochemical processes? (caused by sun's solar wind)


As much as I was looking forward to this mission finally proving or disproving that cometary jets are electrical discharge phenomena, it is now abundantly clear there are 2 things sublimating: water ice, and electric comet theory.

The only thing that was still puzzling to me was the "crystalline silicates" found in comets, but then I found this paper...

Hot temperature minerals have been detected in a large number of comets and were also identified in the samples of Comet Wild 2 that were returned by the Stardust mission. Meanwhile, observations of the distribution of hot minerals in young stellar systems suggest that these materials were produced in the inner part of the primordial nebula and have been transported outward in the formation zone of comets. We investigate the possibility that photophoresis provides a viable mechanism to transport high-temperature materials from the inner solar system to the regions in which the comets were forming. We use a grid of time-dependent disk models of the solar nebula to quantify the distance range at which hot minerals can be transported from the inner part of the disk toward its outer regions as a function of their size and density. The particles considered here are in the form of aggregates that presumably were assembled from hot mineral individual grains ranging down to submicron sizes and formed by condensation within the hottest portion of the solar nebula. Our particle-transport model includes the photophoresis, radiation pressure, and gas drag. .... Our simulations suggest that irrespective of the employed solar nebula model, photophoresis is a mechanism that can explain the presence of hot temperature minerals in the formation region of comets.
querious
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest