Electric Comets

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

Locked
User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Final Piece to the Electric Comet Puzzle?

Unread post by viscount aero » Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:26 pm

Rossim wrote:Viscount aero, I think what Maol is getting at is that I read all over these forums how the orthodox scientists are ignorant, pseudoscientific, blind, and more... but not much is offered by the EU forum to actually help our cause rather than merely identify the problem. Obviously the Rosetta team isn't going to take a look at the Thunderbolts forum, read a thread, then change their perspective on the subject, but we could at least organize our thoughts in a constructive, concise manner for later reference.
Your comment seems intellectually dishonest or myopic. I don't understand your position when the likes of Wal Thornill, Stephen Smith, et al, give regular lectures in public and/or write articles explaining how plasma physics works. These are then posted to the forum. The TPOD section alone explains EU ideas often to great depth. And many forum members including Charles Chandler, to name one, are researchers with their own theories that they explain on the forum. Do you not read or view anything having to do with EU?

Orthodox cosmology is blind and presumptuous. It is largely the realm of untestable fantasy that is often regarded as settled science when that is so far from being true as to be laughable. Although I am merely a citizen scientist I have offered my own views as well concerning some cosmological phenomena. With the aforementioned considered, what is your basis for saying what you have?

flyingcloud
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:07 am
Location: Honey Brook

Flimsy Boulders?

Unread post by flyingcloud » Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:09 am

THE MYSTERIOUS BOULDERS OF COMET 67P:
...
But are they really boulders? "Maybe they only look like rocky boulders," says Art Chmielewski, the US Rosetta Project Manager at JPL. "Some scientists believe that they are 'flimsy' boulders. They may be more like dirty snow balls made in very cold weather. If so they are very fragile and would collapse under the lander. I hope Philae will not find out if that is true."
...
http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php ... &year=2014

There are no such things as flimsy boulders, just flimsy scientific explanations...

Rossim
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

Re: Final Piece to the Electric Comet Puzzle?

Unread post by Rossim » Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:09 am

Intellectually dishonest? Lol. If the Thunderbolts team is the only group capable of furthering the EU cause, then why does this forum exist? I'm basically saying instead of just bitching, do something about it, at least in discussion. Every member on here knows that the mainstream is blind, ignorant, and resistant to change to the point of denial. Placing those statements in a majority of your comments are completely redundant. You're speaking with your peers, not an illiterate space.com community. For instance, I suggested postulating a list of clear falsifications to the standard model that are predicted by and support the EU model. I've seen no list by the thunderbolts team outside of a few generic confirmation predictions. I believe predicting in detail the falsifying evidence of the standard model holds more water (pun intended).

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Final Piece to the Electric Comet Puzzle?

Unread post by viscount aero » Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:21 am

Rossim wrote:Intellectually dishonest? Lol. If the Thunderbolts team is the only group capable of furthering the EU cause, then why does this forum exist? I'm basically saying instead of just bitching, do something about it, at least in discussion. Every member on here knows that the mainstream is blind, ignorant, and resistant to change to the point of denial. Placing those statements in a majority of your comments are completely redundant. You're speaking with your peers, not an illiterate space.com community. For instance, I suggested postulating a list of clear falsifications to the standard model that are predicted by and support the EU model. I've seen no list by the thunderbolts team outside of a few generic confirmation predictions. I believe predicting in detail the falsifying evidence of the standard model holds more water (pun intended).

You must be new or not read the forum. Those things have been posted here at various times for years. Because you are relatively new to the site and haven't really read the forum enough you get a free cookie and cup of lemonade :lol:

I've posted lists of bullet points in dozens of threads for years highlighting why the Standard Model is wrong. Although this doesn't go directly into an EU list of things, this can open up the discussion for it:

• The Hafele–Keating experiment proved nothing to buttress relativity but actually refuted it inadvertently: The clocks, if they were actually capable of being exactly calibrated, would have simply returned to their "original" calibration once they were en route back to each other--brought back into a common reference frame.

• Any singularity-based mathematics to explain actual physical events cannot be true because infinite this or infinite that is not an operative number, not to mention how it is physically untenable and violates conservation. To add, inflation violates conservation as does cosmological acceleration and expansion.

• Mag-lev trains, as an example, defy gravity thus falsifying gravity as the strongest and most influential force in the universe.

• Nebular collapse is false because of 2 main things: If they insist on using the term "hot gas" then hot gas disperses. It doesn't collapse. A nebula of hot gas will never collapse. 2nd: No causal agent for a nebular collapse into a disk of rotating material--that then undergoes thermonuclear fusion--is ever accounted for or known to exist.

• The CMBR cannot be what they say it is because if it was then it violates the 0th Law of Thermodynamics that requires thermal equilibrium. Under an accelerating expansion the cosmos can never attain such thermal equilibrium.

These are just some things.

If you are looking for EU predictions then go to anything done by Wal Thornhill. A standout for me were his predictions for Deep Impact. I will post some things that may be what you're asking for.
Last edited by viscount aero on Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:58 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Final Piece to the Electric Comet Puzzle?

Unread post by viscount aero » Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:48 am

Deep Impact: Confirming the Electric Comet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn_HqbMmn-4

https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005 ... ctions.htm

Jul 04, 2005
Predictions on “Deep Impact”

With the imminent arrival of the “Deep Impact” spacecraft at the comet Tempel 1, it is time to test competing theories on the nature of comets. The predictions and lines of reasoning offered here will set the stage for future analysis of the “electric comet” model.

We are posting this document at 1:45 a.m. Sunday, July 3, with “Deep Impact” less than 24 hours away. This Picture of the Day will remain through July 4. It will be followed within 48 hours (or less) by another Picture of the Day with a preliminary evaluation of the event.

At 10:52 p.m. PDT July 2, the Deep Impact spacecraft will fire an 800-pound copper projectile at the nucleus of Comet Tempel 1. If all goes as planned the projectile will impact on the nucleus 24 hours later. The impact is expected to eject into space large volumes of subsurface material.

Cameras on the projectile will record its approach toward the nucleus, and instruments on the spacecraft will record the event across a broad spectrum. Dozens of telescopes will be trained on the comet. According to NASA scientists, the released material will provide a sample of the primordial water, gas and dust from which the Sun, planets, moons, and other bodies in the solar system formed.

Though Deep Impact team members see this as a milestone event, advocates of the Electric Universe expect a “shock to the system” with revolutionary implications. They say that a comet is not a primordial object left over from the formation of the solar system. Fundamentally, it is distinguishable from a rocky asteroid only by its more elliptical orbit.

In the Electric Universe a comet is a negatively charged object moving through the extensive and constant radial electric field of the positively charged Sun. A comet becomes negatively charged during its long sojourn in the outer solar system. As it speeds into the inner solar system, the increasing voltage and charge density of the plasma (solar “wind”) cause the nucleus to discharge electrically, producing the bright coma and tail.

If the electrical theorists are correct, the implications of the event will not be limited to comet theory alone. At issue is the assumption of an electrically neutral universe, upon which every conventional astronomical theory rests. An electric comet would forever change the picture of the solar system and force astronomers to consider the overwhelming evidence that electricity lights not only our Sun but also all the stars in the heavens. Moreover, the cosmic electricians insist that this would only be the beginning of a more sweeping revolution touching all of the theoretical sciences and in the end recasting our understanding of earth history and the human past.

The most appropriate test of a new theory is its predictive power (see predictions from October 2001 in Wallace Thornhill’s “Comet Borrelly Rocks Core Scientific Beliefs”). Therefore, we wish to make as clear as possible, in advance of the projectile’s impact, the distinctions between the electric model and the standard model. Where the issues grow complex, the primary reason is that the standard model, which failed to anticipate any of the major discoveries about comets over the past three decades or more, has fragmented into competing versions, forced upon the theorists by unsettling facts. Nevertheless a shared ideology continues to guide orthodox comet investigation while limiting scientific perception. For this reason advocates of the electric universe do not believe that a reconciliation of the current theoretical fragments is possible.

To facilitate clarity we shall offer first a brief outline of two theoretical models. As for predictions, we find that NASA scientists have retreated from such essential adventures. Therefore we shall not attempt to speak for them. But we will summarize the best guesses of the electrical theorists.

DIRTY SNOWBALL MODEL:

Comets are composed of undifferentiated “protoplanetary debris”—dust and ices left over from the formation of the solar system billions of years ago.

Radiant heat from the Sun sublimates the ices (turns them directly into vapor without the intermediate step of becoming liquid). The vapor expands around the nucleus to form the coma (head of the comet) and is swept back by the solar wind to form the tail.
Over repeated passages around the Sun, the Sun’s heat vaporizes surface ice and leaves a “rind” of dust.

Where heat penetrates the surface of a blackened, shallow crust, pockets of gas form. Where the pressure breaks through the surface, energetic jets form.

ELECTRIC COMET MODEL:

Comets are debris produced during violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history—a phase that persisted into early human history. Comets are similar to asteroids, and their composition varies. Most comets should be homogeneous—their interiors will have the same composition as their surfaces. They are simply “asteroids on eccentric orbits”.

Comets follow their eccentric orbits within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. They develop a charge imbalance with the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun that initiates discharge and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath—appearing as the coma and tail.

The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs.

Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black, leaving the distinctive scarring patterns of electric discharge. The primary distinction between a comet and an asteroid is that, due to its elliptical orbit, electrical arcing and “electrostatic cleaning” will clean the nucleus’ surface, leaving little or no dust or debris on it.

ELECTRIC MODEL PREDICTIONS FOR DEEP IMPACT:

An abundance of water on or below the surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption of the “dirty snowball” hypothesis) is unlikely.

Tempel 1 has a low-eccentricity orbit. Therefore its charge imbalance with respect to its environment at perihelion is low. (It is a “low-voltage” comet.) Electrical interactions with Deep Impact may be slight, but they should be measurable if NASA will look for them. They would likely be similar to those of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 prior to striking Jupiter’s atmosphere: The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact.

The impactor may form a sheath around it as it enters the coma, becoming a “comet within a comet”.

Electrical stress may short out the electronics on board the impactor before impact.
More energy will be released than expected because of the electrical contributions of the comet. (The discharge could be similar to the “megalightning” bolt that, evidence suggests, struck the shuttle Columbia).

Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile, exceeding any reasonable model for X-ray production through the mechanics of impact. The intensity curve will be that of a lightning bolt (sudden onset, exponential decline) and may well include more than one peak.
If the energy is distributed over several flashes, more than one crater on the comet nucleus could result—in addition to any impact crater.

Any arcs generated will be hotter than can be explained by mechanical impact. If temperature measurements are made with sufficient resolution, they will be much higher than expected from impact heating.

The discharge and/or impact may initiate a new jet on the nucleus (which will be collimated—filamentary—not sprayed out) and could even abruptly change the positions and intensities of other jets due to the sudden change in charge distribution on the comet nucleus.
The impact/electrical discharge will not reveal “primordial dirty ice,” but the same composition as the surface.

The impact/electrical discharge will be into rock, not loosely consolidated ice and dust. The impact crater will be smaller than expected.

We include below a summary of the lines of reasoning followed by the electrical theorists.

MISSING WATER

For the survival of the standard model, nothing is more crucial than finding an abundance of ices on or below the surface of the nucleus of Tempel 1. It is not sufficient to find water merely in the comet’s coma. Negative oxygen ions from cathodic etching of rock minerals in the nucleus will combine with protons from the solar wind to form water in the coma and tail. Spectra of comets already reveal the presence of negative oxygen ions. Moreover, the ions exhibit forbidden lines characteristic of a strong electric field. There is no conventional explanation for these observations.

Wallace Thornhill, whose inquiry into the electric attributes of comets goes back more than 30 years, sees a high probability that scientists will find less water ice and other volatiles than expected, both on the surface and beneath the surface of Tempel 1. In fact none of the electrical theorists will be surprised if the impactor exposes a subsurface with little or no ices. For popular comet theory this would be disastrous, since it now calls upon volatile ices beneath the surface to drive the comet’s jets and create the glowing coma. This requirement is due to the surprising discovery, through prior comet probes, of dry surfaces. The surface of Comet Borrelly, for example, was parched.

But the problem for comet theory is more severe, since evidence for subsurface volatiles also ranges from minimal to non-existent. Examination of Shoemaker-Levy 9 after the comet broke apart revealed no volatiles. When comet Linear disintegrated in front of their eyes, astronomers were astonished by the absence of meaningful water content. Comets do not “disintegrate” by solar heating but explode electrically like an overstressed capacitor.

Of course there are plenty of icy moons in the solar system, and the electrical theorists propose that many comets and asteroids are part of the “afterbirth” of electrical expulsion of planets and moons from their parent primary. So they do not exclude in advance the possibility of water ice on Tempel 1. But it is not required in the electrical model of comets for the production of jets, comas and tails.

SHARP SURFACE RELIEF

The electric model claims that the comas and tails of comets are generated by cathode arcs excavating surface material from the nucleus, in the fashion of electrical discharge machining (EDM) in industrial applications. The model predicts a sculpted surface, distinguished by sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges—the opposite of the softened relief expected of a sublimating “dirty snowball”. (A chunk of ice melting in the Sun loses its sharp relief, just like a scoop of melting ice cream.)

BLACK SURFACES

The first photographs of comet nuclei astonished astronomers with the blackness of the surfaces. The nuclei were darker than copier toner. This observation alone should have called into question the “dirty snowball” hypothesis. But an ad hoc adjustment of the theory followed, arbitrarily assuming that comets were parked for billions of years in deep space, where they suffered radiation damage that blackened their surfaces.

Electric discharge machining “burns” and darkens the rocky comet surface. It requires no additional hypotheses or contrived history of the comet. We see examples of the darkening effect from electrical discharge on Jupiter’s moon Io and on the planet Mars.

WEAKLY CHARGED COMETS.

Comet Tempel 1, which NASA selected for the Deep Impact mission, is certainly not ideal for testing the electrical hypothesis. Of course, NASA scientists do not realize this, since the issue of electrical charge has no place in standard theory.

Short-period comets, which move on modestly elliptical paths (the orbit of Tempel 1 stretches roughly between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars) will not experience the degree of electrical imbalance experienced by long-period comets on much more elliptical paths that take them out well beyond the orbital distances of Neptune or Pluto. The latter have much more time to adjust to the more negative voltage of regions remote from the Sun. The voltage difference of short-period comets as they approach the Sun will be much less than that of long-period comets, and they will not discharge as energetically.

Nevertheless, the electrical theorists say that even a weak candidate for a test of the electrical hypothesis should be sufficient to make a good case. The radical differences between the competing models carry many direct and obvious implications.

ANOMALOUS X-RAYS

If (and it's the biggest "if") Tempel 1 is sufficiently electrically active before impact, Thornhill expects to see the usual non-linear behavior of plasma when subjected to increasing electrical stress. That is, there will be a sudden electric discharge, or arc. An electric discharge between the comet cathode and the copper projectile anode will result in X-ray emission, just as in any X-ray machine on Earth. Such X-rays are easily identifiable and in large amounts would be anomalous for a mere impact.

The electric field of a comet is contained within its (Langmuir) plasma sheath, which encompasses its coma. So the size of the coma is some measure of the electrical stress the comet is suffering. Comet Tempel 1 has a small coma. Two months ago the coma was little bigger than the Earth. However, the comet is rushing toward the copper projectile at almost 23,000 mph, which will not give time for the copper projectile in the exceedingly thin cometary plasma to balance its electrical potential with that of the more negative comet nucleus.

So, before physical impact occurs, we may expect a sudden discharge between the comet nucleus and the copper projectile. It will have the characteristic light-curve of lightning, with rapid onset and exponential decay. The question is, will it be a mere spark or a powerful arc?

Whether due to impact or electric arc, positively charged copper ions may be expected to produce radiation by recombination with free electrons. A small proportion of that radiation may be in the x-ray region. But the spectrum and intensity curve for radiation from an impact should be quite different from the flash of an electric arc impinging on a copper anode.

The arc should also give a restricted, almost point, source for the radiation from the target sites on the impactor and the comet nucleus. This is quite different from anything expected from distributed explosion products.

Because electric arcing causes the craters seen on comets, there is the possibility that the Deep Impact projectile will form an electrical crater as well as (or instead of) an impact crater.

When the impactor arrives, Thornhill considers it likely that active jets will move or switch off, since the comet's electrical field will have been suddenly disturbed. The simple thermal out-gassing model does not expect this.

ANOMALOUS DISCHARGE

Outbursts from comet nuclei frequently occur, giving rise to expressions of astonishment from comet observers. Such events do not fit well with a model of sublimating ices, and the cause remains mysterious. But such events have required cometologists to speculate about heating processes inside the comet. In the electrical model, energetic outbursts are expected due to the non-linear behavior of plasma in the changing electrical environment of the solar “wind”. Comets have flared beyond the orbit of Jupiter, even beyond the orbit of Saturn, where known icy bodies do not sublimate under solar radiation. A potentially embarrassing, ad hoc proposal has been put forward that attributes the more remote and “miraculous” outbursts to collisions with meteoric material.

In fact, all energetic discharging from comet nuclei at the distance of Mars’ orbit or beyond is anomalous under the standard model. Attempts at explanations invariably expose contradictions. We see ice on Mars and on the moons of the gas-giant outer planets. Mars, of course, is the closest of the three to the Sun, but when ice sublimates on Mars, it does not produce jets. The icy moons of Jupiter do not produce jets under the influence of solar radiation. Here, the electrical theorists can only express their amazement at the general lack of attention to such contradictions when comets begin discharging even farther out from the Sun.

COLLIMATED AND FILAMENTARY JETS

Despite years of photographs showing collimated jets (narrow filaments that maintain their coherence across considerable distances), the artists' conceptions of comets still show jets as geyser-like eruptions, spraying out into space. An expanding jet is the expected behavior of neutral gas and dust entering a vacuum. But it is not characteristic of an electric discharge in plasma. A good look at the jets of Tempel 1 reveals the characteristic features of a plasma discharge, with coherent current filaments that do not obey the rules of behavior of neutral gases. A look at a novelty-store plasma ball demonstrates the effect nicely.

JET ENERGIES AND VELOCITIES

On this issue the electrical theorists are emphatic: by proposing mechanical “jets” from comet nuclei, standard theory has descended into the preposterous. No analogy either in space or in experimental science supports the idea that sublimating ices 150 million miles and farther from the Sun could generate “jet chambers” or produce the sonic and supersonic jet velocities our instruments have measured.

The notion is inherently contradictory and violates the most obvious dynamic principles. Collimated, mechanically induced jets over the observed distances they travel would require, first, a finely machined nozzle, even more precise than those used on rocket engines, not a jagged opening in a “dirty snowball”. The idea requires a chamber that is insulated from the Sun, though anything even casting a shadow would lead to instant freezing.

The “model” also requires subsurface heating in the deep freeze of these remote regions. The “heating” would have to reach through an insulating crust roughly estimated to be ten feet deep, yet achieving things inconceivable for solar heating even in the absence of insulation. Pressure must build up to an extraordinary level. Then when the pressure erupts, something most mysterious must occur. Despite the instant release, equivalent pressures must be sustained for long periods to maintain the supersonic velocities—even to alter the orbits of comets in the way some astronomers now propose. We’ve said it before: “To save the theory astronomers now cling to the incredible”.

For the electrical theorists, the answer is all too obvious. Electrical discharge accelerates material into collimated jets along the self-confining Birkeland currents that constitute the discharge arcs.

HEAVY ELEMENTS

If an arc is struck between the comet nucleus and the projectile, we may expect to see metals such as Li, Na, K, Ca, Mg and Fe in a flash spectrum before impact. They will have been removed from the rocky comet in the cathode arc.

The sulfur molecule S2 is one of the great unsolved mysteries of comet chemistry. It has been identified in several, but not all, comets. The molecule has a very short lifetime and sublimes at a higher temperature than those found on cometary surfaces or grains. It is not the equilibrium form of the molecule either. But S2 is the kind of molecule that could be produced from rocky minerals in the extreme electrical environment of a plasma arc.

NEGATIVE IONS

Negative ions were discovered in the inner coma of Comet Halley with densities 100 times greater than expected from conventional theory. Thornhill and his colleagues urge NASA investigators to look for an abundance of negative ions in the impact ejecta. This would, of course, be an obvious signature of a negatively charged comet. Forbidden spectral lines from negative oxygen ions have been detected spectroscopically in comet comas in the past. And no one can reasonably dispute that they indicate the presence there of a strong electric field.

It is advisable that investigators look at water abundances both close to the nucleus and in the far coma to see to what extent water is being formed away from the nucleus by the combination of negative oxygen ions with protons from the solar wind. The logical concern here is that these reactions will, by improper reasoning, give inflated values for the water ice abundance in the comet nucleus.

IMPACTOR LIGHTNING STRIKE

The copper impactor has a camera that is supposed to be active until impact. There is some doubt that the camera will be able to provide images closer than a few tens of kilometers to the nucleus because of anticipated damage to the lens by high-velocity dust particles. However, transmissions should continue until impact, according to NASA investigators. But if an arc to the projectile occurs, transmissions will cease before impact.

Of course, the most tragic potential here is that the projectile, which carries its own navigation instruments, could experience an electrical disruption before it had maneuvered itself into the precise position required for impact.

IMPACT SITE TEMPERATURES

A mechanical impact will not produce the temperatures of an electric arc, which can be tens of thousands of degrees over a very small area. The problem will be whether temperature readings will have the resolution to be able to distinguish a very high temperature over a tiny area or merely an average over a large impact area. Anomalous high temperature readings could precede physical impact, accompany impact, and follow impact.

COMET BRIGHTNESS

Tempel 1 is a magnitude dimmer than (i.e., less than half as bright as) expected from the comet’s previous approaches to the Sun. Conventional theory has no explanation for this lower energy. The electrical model notes that the Sun is approaching the minimum in its sunspot cycle, which means that the solar electrical energy input is at a minimum. Because the comet’s brightness depends on electrical energy from the Sun’s circuit, the effect is analogous to turning down the dimmer switch on a light bulb. This lower energy level also reduces the likelihood of the more dramatic “electrical fireworks” during Deep Impact’s encounter.

See also:
Jun 30, 2005 Deep Impact
Dec 29, 2004 Electric Comets and the "Domino Effect"
Nov 22, 2004 What's in a Comet's Tail?
Last edited by viscount aero on Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Final Piece to the Electric Comet Puzzle?

Unread post by viscount aero » Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:52 am

The Pioneer Anomaly
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/0 ... anomaly-2/

Apr 16, 2013

Scientists have found a small but significant deceleration in the Pioneer spacecraft as it makes its way through interstellar space.

For several years, NASA analysts have reported a slow but steady “tug” on the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft as they head outward in opposite directions from the Sun. Based on the gravity-only model of the universe under which observational research is constrained, the research team has no explanation for what has been termed the “Pioneer Anomaly”.

Pioneer 10 was launched from Cape Canaveral on March 2, 1972 on a primary flyby mission to Jupiter. It was the first spacecraft to reach Jupiter and return close up images of the giant planet. Its last signal was received on January 23, 2003 when it was almost 8 billion miles from Earth. Until the faster moving Voyager 1 space probe overtook it, Pioneer 10 was the most remote man-made object in space.

Pioneer 11 was launched April 5, 1973, on a similar mission, except that it was sent in the opposite direction to the Sun’s motion through the galaxy. Unlike Pioneer 10, which moved into a trajectory taking it upward and out of the plane of the ecliptic, Pioneer 11 headed for Saturn and the more remote regions of the solar system, passing within 21,000 kilometers of Saturn’s cloud tops. On November 30, 1995, Pioneer 11 reached the end of its power supply and was silenced forever.

The effect that concerns NASA scientists is the distance calculations for both probes. Each appears to be off course by several hundred thousand kilometers and no one can quite figure out why. Suggestions for the cause of the deceleration range from the comical to the contrived:

Dark matter is acting like a friction medium, creating drag.

Multi-dimensional space is acting on the probes in ways that are not understood.

Gravity is not behaving as theory suggests it should behave.

Dark energy is being observed in its anti-gravitational activity.

“Quantum kinetics” theorizes that sub-atomic forces are acting on the probes in unexpected and undetectable ways.

In a previous Picture of the Day article about WMAP and the cosmic microwave background, the “hole in space” astronomers have detected was shown to be nothing more than an illusion resulting from theories that advocate a big bang cosmology. In the case of the Pioneer anomaly, a similar intellectual blindness is overwhelming the ability for conventional observers to see what is actually happening. As the litany of “possibilities” grows more esoteric, they move ever more distant from the truth of the matter: electric currents in space.

Doppler shift methodology is used in the Pioneer 10 observations. Every so often, microwave signals are beamed at the spacecraft in order to time the return signal. The distance the probe has traveled can be determined through time-speed-distance calculations. The discrepancy amounts to a tiny but measurable amount.

According to our current understanding of gravity, over the last 34 years both Pioneer 10 and 11 should have traveled more that 400,000 kilometers farther than they have actually flown. As NASA investigator Slava Turyshev states:

“This inability to explain the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft with conventional physics has contributed to the growing discussion about its origin.”

However, as long ago as March 20, 2002, electrical theorist, author and speaker Wal Thornhill wrote:

“After launch, a spacecraft accepts electrons from the surrounding space plasma until the craft’s voltage is sufficient to repel further electrons. Near Earth it is known that a spacecraft may attain a negative potential of several tens of thousands of volts relative to its surroundings. So, in interplanetary space, the spacecraft becomes a charged object moving in the Sun’s weak electric field. Being negatively charged, it will experience an infinitesimal “tug” toward the positively charged Sun. Of most significance is the fact that the voltage gradient, that is the electric field, throughout interplanetary space remains constant. In other words, the retarding force on the spacecraft will not diminish with distance from the Sun. This effect distinguishes the electrical model from all others because all known force laws diminish with distance. The effect is real and it will have a fundamental impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation because…Pioneer 10 has confirmed the electrical model of Stars!”

Stephen Smith

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Final Piece to the Electric Comet Puzzle?

Unread post by viscount aero » Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:56 am

Redshifts and Microwaves
Posted on February 19, 2014 by Stephen Smith
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/0 ... rowaves-3/

Galaxy NGC 7319. Arrow points to foreground high redshift quasar.
Credit: NASA/Hubble Space Telescope

Feb 19, 2014

Modern astronomy surely suffers from a kind of blindness. It is either a blindness of mind or one of practice.

The continuing presence of Big Bang cosmology among those who are charged with increasing the store of scientific knowledge proves that there certainly is blindness in some form. Not only astronomers, but science reporters have lost the ability to differentiate fact from theory, thus helping to perpetuate the Big Bang. Media reports constantly assert that new discoveries confirm it when such reports are not based on observational evidence.

On October 3, 2003, the Big Bang theory was falsified by direct observation. The galaxy NGC 7319 was measured to have a redshift of z = 0.0225. It is not uncommon for “nearby” galaxies to have redshifts below z = 1. However, a quasar was located in front of NGC 7319’s opaque gas clouds with an observed redshift of z = 2.114.

The two principle tenets of the Big Bang theory are that redshift is proportional to distance and that it is an indicator of velocity. The larger an object’s redshift the farther away it is and the faster it is moving away from the observer. Those two ideas provide the backdrop for the commonly held belief that the Universe is expanding.

According to the Big Bang, the NGC 7319 quasar “must be billions of light years farther away than the galaxy” because it has a higher redshift. Yet, since the galaxy is opaque, the quasar has to be in front of the galactic dust clouds and not shining through them.

“No one has found a quasar with such a high redshift, with a redshift of 2.11, so close to the center of an active galaxy,” said the late astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge at the time. The discovery team included his spouse, E. Margaret Burbidge, another noted astronomer. The find was significant because it is the most extreme example of a quasar in front of a galaxy with a lower redshift.

Conventional cosmology relies on an electrically neutral Universe ruled by gravity. Without this dogmatic consensus, the Big Bang would never have become so predominant. Scientists, needing to renew their grants every year, “confirm” the theory when, according to reports, it has been discredited. Magazine publishers desire to maintain good relationships with established institutions, so they accept the latest news releases with little background investigation or critical analysis.

On June 30, 2001, NASA launched the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) on a mission to reexamine some unusual telemetry returned by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite in 1992. Temperature fluctuations data seemed to suggest that there were regions of lower mass density in the Universe. Since the Big Bang theory does not account for such regions—matter and energy should be evenly distributed—the WMAP survey was sent to verify COBE’s results.

Electric Universe advocate Wal Thornhill pointed out that neither COBE or WMAP detected “cosmic” radiation. Rather, they both found the natural microwave radiation from “electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun. Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the Universe.”

The Electric Universe theory has an entirely different way of addressing these matters. It does not rely on unseen and undetectable forces whose existence can only be inferred. Electric currents flowing through ionized gas and dust provide the energy for the stars, presenting themselves in straightforward and understandable ways without resorting to esoteric mathematical models.

Redshifts and microwaves have proven themselves inadequate to explain how the Universe functions.

Stephen Smith

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Flimsy Boulders?

Unread post by viscount aero » Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:13 pm

flyingcloud wrote:
THE MYSTERIOUS BOULDERS OF COMET 67P:
...
But are they really boulders? "Maybe they only look like rocky boulders," says Art Chmielewski, the US Rosetta Project Manager at JPL. "Some scientists believe that they are 'flimsy' boulders. They may be more like dirty snow balls made in very cold weather. If so they are very fragile and would collapse under the lander. I hope Philae will not find out if that is true."
...
http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php ... &year=2014

There are no such things as flimsy boulders, just flimsy scientific explanations...
I agree.

And again, astronomy has apparently learned nothing from prior comet missions. The biggest opportunity of the last decade, Deep Impact/Swift x-ray telescope data, has been entirely forgotten as if the establishment has amnesia. The surface isn't snowy or porous. It is rocky and harder:

excerpt from:
http://www.universetoday.com/10666/swif ... ep-impact/

Swift’s Take on Deep Impact
by FRASER CAIN on JULY 6, 2005

Swift’s view of Comet Tempel 1.

Scientists using the Swift satellite witnessed a tale of fire and ice today, as NASA’s Deep Impact probe slammed into the frozen comet Tempel 1. The collision briefly lit the dim comet’s surface and exposed, for the first time, a section of ancient and virgin material from the comet’s interior.

Swift is providing the only simultaneous multi-wavelength observation of this rare event, with a suite of instruments capable of detecting optical light, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays. Different wavelengths reveal different secrets about the comet.

So far, after a set of eight observations each lasting about 50 minutes, Swift scientists have seen a quick and dramatic rise in ultraviolet light, evidence that the Deep Impact probe struck a hard surface, as opposed to a softer, snowy surface.
-----------

Deep Impact: Confirming the Electric Comet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn_HqbMmn-4

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Final Piece to the Electric Comet Puzzle?

Unread post by viscount aero » Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:01 pm

If Deep Impact data did not confirm the existence of subsurface ice and water then why are ESA/Rosetta scientists clinging to the idea of subsurface ice and water for 67P?

excerpt from:
http://cosmosmagazine.com/news/stardust ... t-mystery/

Tempel 1 was last glimpsed in 2005 by NASA’s Deep Impact mission as the comet was shooting toward the Sun on its five-year orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Deep Impact pummelled the comet with a special impactor spacecraft and the material that came out was a surprise to scientists: a cloud of fine powdery material emerged, not the water, ice and dirt that was expected.

Rossim
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

Re: Final Piece to the Electric Comet Puzzle?

Unread post by Rossim » Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:27 pm

Wow guy, not only are you insulting but you're ignorant and naive. I have been following the Thunderbolts project for at least five years and have watched every video they've produced multiple times. Your little tantrum went way off course. If you calm down and read my post I suggested predicting direct observations obtainable by the Rosetta mission which would falsify the standard model of a comet. Then you went nuts and gathered random information from all over the site. You're stuck in the past and keep referencing how blind and stupid the mainstream world is. Ok, we got it. Now get over it and think about what you can do about it now.

So like I said, the "Rosetta Mission Predictions" consists of supporting evidence of the electric model, this still leaves the mainstream reason to ignore it. A predicted list of falsifying observations attainable by Rosetta or Philae will be much more detrimental to the standard model OF A COMET if they come to fruition. This is how you use our resources to further the cause, not just rant and pout about how blind the other scientists are.

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Final Piece to the Electric Comet Puzzle?

Unread post by viscount aero » Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:40 pm

Rossim wrote:Wow guy, not only are you insulting but you're ignorant and naive. I have been following the Thunderbolts project for at least five years and have watched every video they've produced multiple times. Your little tantrum went way off course. If you calm down and read my post I suggested predicting direct observations obtainable by the Rosetta mission which would falsify the standard model of a comet. Then you went nuts and gathered random information from all over the site. You're stuck in the past and keep referencing how blind and stupid the mainstream world is. Ok, we got it. Now get over it and think about what you can do about it now.

So like I said, the "Rosetta Mission Predictions" consists of supporting evidence of the electric model, this still leaves the mainstream reason to ignore it. A predicted list of falsifying observations attainable by Rosetta or Philae will be much more detrimental to the standard model OF A COMET if they come to fruition. This is how you use our resources to further the cause, not just rant and pout about how blind the other scientists are.
Then if you've watched every video then why did you suggest that the site's forum doesn't offer clear and specific explanations of anything? Your prior statements appear to come from a newer member, hence my assumption. These are your own words:

" ...I read all over these forums how the orthodox scientists are ignorant, pseudoscientific, blind, and more... but not much is offered by the EU forum to actually help our cause rather than merely identify the problem....For instance, I suggested postulating a list of clear falsifications to the standard model that are predicted by and support the EU model. I've seen no list by the thunderbolts team outside of a few generic confirmation predictions. I believe predicting in detail the falsifying evidence of the standard model holds more water (pun intended)."

^^^ As it reads it is very sweeping and broad.

So to help you I offered myriad replies covering the general things that one would need to understand. You mentioned nothing about the Rosetta mission specifically but remarked in broad terms. So to bring you up to speed, I gave you amply broad things to help you understand :geek: Do you not like my giving to you? Why?

Perhaps you are trying to maintain something that I don't understand?

Not a tantrum but an act of giving: I provided lots of material in the event you were unable to see how the EU community explains itself. As you can see it amply explains that which it claims, which includes falsification of standard models.

Overall I don't really understand why you seem to be moving the goal posts away from what you stated.

To add, whenever I "rant and pout" I offer reasons why their models are wrong. Otherwise there is no reason to post anything. For example in the general list I provided earlier, with the bullet points, I pointed out why the standard ideas cannot possibly be true. And thus far the ESA team has their typical death grip on the dirty snowball idea no matter what data is downloaded to them. Is this not hilarious? :lol:

Rossim
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

Re: Final Piece to the Electric Comet Puzzle?

Unread post by Rossim » Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:09 pm

I said not much is offered by the EU Forum.... not the Thunderbolts team...? In an earlier post I mentioned comet theory specifically, I also included a possible falsification regarding not only the movements of jets (documented by the Thunderbolts) but exactly what we should see and how it would directly falsify the current model. Most of the threads started consist of an article showing support of electrical phenomena followed by an onslaught of ridicule always mentioning the blindness or ignorance of the standard models. This helps nothing. Clearly, your constant assembling of dated material and disgust towards the mainstream was acknowledged by others so maybe you should reread your own comments and ponder on why you come across differently than you intend.

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Final Piece to the Electric Comet Puzzle?

Unread post by viscount aero » Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:18 pm

Rossim wrote:I said not much is offered by the EU Forum.... not the Thunderbolts team...? In an earlier post I mentioned comet theory specifically, I also included a possible falsification regarding not only the movements of jets (documented by the Thunderbolts) but exactly what we should see and how it would directly falsify the current model. Most of the threads started consist of an article showing support of electrical phenomena followed by an onslaught of ridicule always mentioning the blindness or ignorance of the standard models. This helps nothing. Clearly, your constant assembling of dated material and disgust towards the mainstream was acknowledged by others so maybe you should reread your own comments and ponder on why you come across differently than you intend.
The dated material is largely from the Deep Impact mission that I believe was in 2005, thereabouts. And the data from that, which is highly telling and valuable, is being largely ignored by the ESA team, as if they have never seen it before.

So I am astonished at their lack of ability, seemingly, to reference prior comet missions. On that point, I cannot talk about prior comet missions without pulling out dated material. They're older and some go back to Comet Halley. I bring this all up because ESA is behaving as if none of that ever happened. To clarify my positions I think that cometary mission data history is necessary to reference in light of the Rosetta mission. But the scientists seem to be utterly disinterested in it. Things would not be so baffling to them if they were to learn from their own history. But they're not. At least not what they reveal in press releases.

About the other things, let us shake hands and move on. I'm tired of going over that. Your points are taken.

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Final Piece to the Electric Comet Puzzle?

Unread post by viscount aero » Tue Oct 14, 2014 10:57 pm

Getting back on the original point of the thread, this article is more in-depth than the space.com one. Take note that the scientists freely and openly discuss the chemistry of the solar wind and how it relates to the formation of hyrdroxyls embedded in Lunar soil and rocks. Yet the Moon is never spoken of in terms of it being a snowman in space, and no such connection is ever made with comets to the findings outlined below:

from: http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/20870- ... unar-soils

Solar wind particles likely source of water locked inside lunar soils

Oct 15, 2012 Contact Jim Erickson

ANN ARBOR—The most likely source of the water locked inside soils on the moon's surface is the constant stream of charged particles from the sun known as the solar wind, a University of Michigan researcher and his colleagues have concluded.

Over the last five years, spacecraft observations and new lab measurements of Apollo lunar samples have overturned the long-held belief that the moon is bone-dry.

In 2009, NASA's Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing satellite, known as LCROSS, slammed into a permanently shadowed lunar crater and ejected a plume of material that was surprisingly rich in water ice. Water and related compounds have also been detected in the lunar regolith, the layer of fine powder and rock fragments that coats the lunar surface.

But the origin of lunar surface water has remained unclear. Is it mainly the result of impacts from water-bearing comets and other chunks of space debris, or could there be other sources? Theoretical models of lunar water stability dating to the late 1970s suggest that hydrogen ions (protons) from the solar wind can combine with oxygen on the moon's surface to form water and related compounds called hydroxyls, which consist of one atom of hydrogen and one of oxygen and are known as OH.

In an article published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, U-M's Youxue Zhang and colleagues from the University of Tennessee and the California Institute of Technology present findings that support solar-wind production of water ice on the moon.

The first author of the paper is Yang Liu of U-T. She is a U-M alumna who earned her doctorate under Zhang, who is a professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences.

In the paper, the researchers present infrared spectroscopy and mass spectrometry analyses of Apollo samples that reveal the presence of significant amounts of hydroxyl inside glasses formed in the lunar regolith by micrometeorite impacts.

When combined, the techniques of Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and secondary ion mass spectrometry can be used to determine the chemical form of the hydrogen in a substance, as well as its abundance and its isotopic composition. Most of the infrared spectroscopy work was done at Zhang's U-M lab, and the mass spectroscopy was conducted at Caltech.

"We found that the 'water' component, the hydroxyl, in the lunar regolith is mostly from solar wind implantation of protons, which locally combined with oxygen to form hydroxyls that moved into the interior of glasses by impact melting," said Zhang, the James R. O'Neil Collegiate Professor of Geological Sciences.

"Lunar regolith is everywhere on the lunar surface, and glasses make up about half of lunar regolith. So our work shows that the 'water' component, the hydroxyl, is widespread in lunar materials, although not in the form of ice or liquid water that can easily be used in a future manned lunar base."

The findings imply that ice inside permanently shadowed polar craters on the moon, sometimes called cold traps, could contain hydrogen atoms ultimately derived from the solar wind, the researchers report.

"This also means that water likely exists on Mercury and on asteroids such as Vesta or Eros further within our solar system," Liu said. "These planetary bodies have very different environments, but all have the potential to produce water."

The regolith glasses are called agglutinates, and the study reported in Nature Geoscience is the first to identify agglutinates as a new reservoir of OH on the moon—an "unanticipated, abundant reservoir" of OH and water in the lunar regolith, according to the authors.

The researchers analyzed individual grains from Apollo 11 mare soil, Apollo 16 highland soil and Apollo 17 mare soil. The grains included agglutinates and impact glasses.

In addition to Liu and Zhang, authors of the Nature Geoscience report are Yunbin Guan, George Rossman and John Eiler of Caltech and Lawrence Taylor of U-T.

The work was funded in part by NASA cosmochemistry grants to Taylor and Zhang, by support from the Moore Foundation to the Caltech Microanalysis Center, and by a National Science Foundation grant to Rossman. A portion of the study was also supported by U-T's the Planetary Geosciences Institute.

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Final Piece to the Electric Comet Puzzle?

Unread post by viscount aero » Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:47 pm

I find this highly ironic:

excerpt from: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/0 ... -c2012-s1/

"The European Space Agency’s Giotto probe met Halley’s Comet on March 16, 1986. Among several discoveries, the comet was found to be covered with a black crust. Bright jets of ionized gas, or plasma, blasted out from its surface in three highly localized areas. Water was present in Halley’s coma, but according to Horst Uwe Keller of the Max Planck Institut für Aeronomie: “We discovered that a comet is not really a ‘dirty snowball’ since dirt is dominant, not ice. Instead of being spherical like a warm snowball, a comet nucleus is elongated. The physical structure of a comet’s interior is defined by its dust content rather than its ice content.”

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests