Electric Jupiter

[junglelord]

I was going to post that two days ago....but never bothered.
I figured the same thing, a discharge event from a comet/asteroid.
What was cool was that two amature astronomers saw and captured it on video.
That makes them famous....how cool is that?
Imagine being the one or two people two witness an event like this, let alone being able to film it.
SWEET.

[flyingcloud]

Jupiter Impact: Mystery of the Missing Debris

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... ingdebris/

June 11, 2010: On June 3rd, 2010, something hit Jupiter. A comet or asteroid descended from the black of space, struck the planet's cloudtops, and disintegrated, producing a flash of light so bright it was visible in backyard telescopes on Earth. Soon, observers around the world were training their optics on the impact site, waiting to monitor the cindery cloud of debris which always seems to accompany a strike of this kind.

They're still waiting....


...So where is the debris this time?

A possibility offered by some observers is that the flash wasn't an impact at all. Maybe Go and Wesley witnessed a giant Jovian lightning bolt.

"I consider that very, very unlikely," says Orton. "NASA spacecraft have seen lightning on Jupiter many times before, but only on the planet's nightside. This dayside event would have to be unimaginably more powerful than any previous bolt we've seen. Even Jupiter doesn't produce lightning that big."

[Osmosis]

C'mon, NASA, never say never

[Xuxalina Rihhia]

Jupiter is part of the cosmic electrical circuit that powers the sun. If Jupiter were in deep space, it would be a brown dwarf with a reddish anode outer glow. Lightning flashes are electrically powered so what we saw might have been gigalightning, powered by electricity from outside Jupiter. I would like to see if that flash might have also produced X-rays and gamma rays.

[Speed Metal]

Now it gets interesting! None of the expected effects of an impact have been seen. Although it seems that SL-9 impact flashes also looked similar to me, albeit more energetic.

In this new event have we really just witnessed an unbelievably huge lightning strike? I Too would like to see if X-Rays or Gamma rays were emitted. We really have to monitor these "gas giants" more closely!

Additionally, I find it very interesting that Jupiter's poles (amongst other features) are so bright in IR light. Probably caused by Jupiter's mighty "Tidal" forces I guess, eh? Awesome pics BTW Lloyd!

Would the poles get brighter in IR light if current density increases? I would assume they would as it seems logical to me. I would also assume that if current density increases, Jupiter's discharge events would be more energetic? More frequent?

The theory that our gas giants are brown dwarf stars at low current densities greatly intrigues me. But since I know little about electrical engineering and plasma physics I have sooo many questions. The many answers from the EU perspective make much more sense to me than the answers from mainstream gravity worshipers.

Regards,

Speed Metal

[StefanR]

"I consider that very, very unlikely," says Orton. "NASA spacecraft have seen lightning on Jupiter many times before, but only on the planet's nightside. This dayside event would have to be unimaginably more powerful than any previous bolt we've seen. Even Jupiter doesn't produce lightning that big."

Very disingenious, pretending to know everything about all possible interactions near Jupiter and by that dismissing lightning so easily.

But a certain relationship shouldn't be denied that easily, in my opinion.

"When I saw the flash, I couldn't believe it," said amateur astronomer Anthony Wesley. "The fireball lasted about 2 seconds and was very bright."

Curiously, the impactor (if indeed this was an impact event) struck right in the middle of Jupiter's South Equatorial Belt (SEB), one of the two broad stripes that girdle the planet. This is "curious" because the SEB itself vanished earlier this year. Orton has proposed that the missing belt still exists, it's just temporarily hidden underneath some high-altitude cirrus clouds.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... ingdebris/

The thread concerning jupiter's SEB:

According to this theory, the south equatorial belt disappears when whitish clouds form on top of it, blocking our view of the darker clouds. But it is not clear what causes these whitish clouds to form in the south equatorial belt at some times and not others, Orton says.

However, pictures from the Cassini spacecraft show that individual storm cells of upwelling bright-white clouds, too small to see from Earth, pop up almost without exception in the dark belts. Earlier spacecraft had hinted so, but not with the overwhelming evidence provided by the new images of 43 different storms.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 89&start=0

Jupiter's Lightning:

The bright flashes appear to originate in active regions at the level where water clouds would exist, and illuminate an even lower cloud level containing ammonia. One thing is for sure: lightning on Jupiter is a lot brighter than lighting on Earth.

Each of the circled dots indicates lightning. The numbers label lines of latitude. The size of the largest spot is about 500 kilometers across and might be high clouds illuminated by several bright lightning strokes.

This Galileo image highlights a convective storm and associated lightning in Jupiter's atmosphere.

One pair of frames shows the same portion of the planet both in daylight then after it had rotated to the night side, showing that only certain small areas were producing lightning.

Images taken of Jupiter's day and night sides by Cassini on Jan. 1, 2001 show that storms visible on the day side are the sources of visible lightning when viewed on the night side.
The two day-side occurrences of high clouds, in the upper and lower parts of the image, are coincident with lightning storms seen on the dark side.

The results showed that lighting occurs on Jupiter less than here on Earth but when it does occur it is usually more intense.

"Models of terrestrial lightning suggest that to build up electrical charge, both liquid water and ice have to be present. Rain requires a relatively wet Jupiter, and that's a controversial subject.

Images of Jupiter's night side taken by the Galileo spacecraft reveal that the planet's lightning is controlled by the large-scale atmospheric circulation and is associated with low-pressure regions.

This is the first lightning seen at high latitudes on Jupiter; it demonstrates that convection is not confined to lower latitudes, implying an internal driving heat source. Their power is consistent with previous lightning measurements at Jupiter's lower latitudes, equivalent to extremely bright terrestrial "super bolts."

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 6068#p6068


If not lightning perhaps something as a Jovian sprite?

[StefanR]

Mysterious Flash on Jupiter Left No Debris Cloud

Detailed observations made by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have found an answer to the flash of light seen June 3 on Jupiter. It came from a giant meteor burning up high above Jupiter's cloud tops. The space visitor did not plunge deep enough into the atmosphere to explode and leave behind any telltale cloud of debris, as seen in previous Jupiter collisions.

Astronomers around the world knew that something must have hit the giant planet to unleash a flash of energy bright enough to be seen 400 million miles away. But they didn't know how deeply it penetrated into the atmosphere. There have been ongoing searches for the "black-eye" pattern of a deep direct hit.

The sharp vision and ultraviolet sensitivity of Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3 were brought to bear on seeking out any trace evidence of the aftermath of the cosmic collision. Images taken on June 7 — just over three days after the flash was sighted — show no sign of debris above Jupiter's cloud tops. This means that the object didn't descend beneath the clouds and explode as a fireball. "If it did, dark sooty blast debris would have been ejected and would have rained down onto the cloud tops, and the impact site would have appeared dark in the ultraviolet and visible images due to debris from an explosion," says team member Heidi Hammel of the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo. "We see no feature that has those distinguishing characteristics in the known vicinity of the impact, suggesting there was no major explosion and fireball."

Dark smudges marred Jupiter's atmosphere when a series of comet fragments hit Jupiter in July 1994. A similar phenomenon occurred in July 2009 when a suspected asteroid slammed into Jupiter. The latest intruder is estimated to be only a fraction the size of these previous impactors.

"We suspected for this 2010 impact there might be no big explosion driving a giant plume, and hence no resulting debris field to be imaged. There was just the meteor, and Hubble confirmed this," adds Hammel, a veteran Jupiter observer of the 1994 string of impacts.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 0/20/full/

I will not insert the rest of the article, as it just descends further and further into sillyness.
So if I got this right, they say that when there is a black smudge after a flash it means it was a meteor and when there is no black smudge after a flash it most certainly must have been a meteor.
So when does one know it is not a meteor?

[CTJG 1986]

I will not insert the rest of the article, as it just descends further and further into sillyness.
So if I got this right, they say that when there is a black smudge after a flash it means it was a meteor and when there is no black smudge after a flash it most certainly must have been a meteor.

So when does one know it is not a meteor?

When NASA tells us it's not a meteor we will know it's not a meteor. That's how they like it.

But my opinion of NASA these days is less than my opinion for the traditional Catholic Church, so I don't take anything they say seriously unless supported by respectable individuals outside the mainstream community.

How can anyone trust an organization that openly lies to us about how Dark Matter is everywhere but we can't see or detect it, or how super-massive black holes are such a powerful force that they can devour almost anything else in the universe all while not existing in any directly detectable manner - and they aren't detectable unless the observer can exist for infinity.

Now we have meteors that exist without evidence of a meteor simply because they refuse to accept there could be alternative explanations, and the lack of evidence of a meteor strike is used as evidence itself - the lack of a debris cloud "confirmed" that it was a meteor somehow.

I am the last person in the world who thinks he knows everything, I just know that the mainstream community doesn't really know anything either but pretends to know everything and when people confront them they say we're trying to be the "know-it-all's" for disagreeing with their fairytale version of things.

I don't mean to get off topic I just had some dealings earlier with an arrogant guy who basically said I was mentally retarded for not agreeing that his vision of the universe was 100% correct. When I challenged him on the typical fairiedust stuff - black holes, neutron stars, dark energy and matter - he just changed the subject and began attacking me for having a "problem with authority" and being a conspiracy nut.

How are we who oppose the mainstream being arrogant by trying to point out to them that their arrogance is so grand they don't even recognize the fact they COULD be wrong?

Not only do I accept with every opinion I put forth that I COULD be wrong, I accept that 99% of the time I probably am wrong or at least I am not completely correct. There is no doubt in my mind that EU theory is probably way off the mark in some areas too but until we collect better evidence in those areas the EU hypothesis' are as valid as any other(more so than some).

Not agreeing with the mainstream's attempt to claim to know everything while ignoring anything and everything that contradicts their views does not mean I am claiming to know everything myself. You would think supposedly intelligent "scientists" could grasp such a simple fact.

Sorry for the rant but I was a little miffed by that guy earlier and needed to get some stuff out, and that NASA article gave me a good opportunity here.

(note: the rant is not directed toward any of the quality scientists and researchers I've met/had contact with over the years who admit they may be wrong and actually take some alternative theories seriously. For those individuals I have nothing but respect.)

[Speed Metal]

CTJG 1986,
believe me you're not alone in your frustration! You would not believe the blank stares and name calling I receive when telling people about the EU theory.

And when NASA or some other "authority" says something it becomes indisputable and not up for debate. Logical fallacies abound with the mainstreamers and they're totally confortable believing in their fairy tales.

The article posted by Stefan is a prime example. No matter what happens, whether their predictions (or should I say prophecies?) come true or not, every observation "confirms" their beliefs. Afer a little Council of Nicea-like tweaking of course

So the absence of a debris cloud also proves that there was an impact? Or maybe, Jupiter has a "micro-massive" black hole in its centre, and what we saw was a momentary brightenting of the accretion disk that appeared on the surface of because of some kind of gravitational lensing effect caused by the MMBH. Yeah that's the ticket.

Because we KNOW it couldn't be electrical!

So I know your frustrations. Sure the EU theory might not be 100% correct, but compared to the relativists, the EU Theory makes sense where the Big Bangers/Relativists befuddle us with abstract (not mention illegal) math.

Regards,

speed metal

[CTJG 1986]

I promise this is my last post on this offtopic subject in this thread...

Speed Metal,

I had a discussion today with an old friend who is a "consensus" view holder in regards to science about the relation between Science and Religion in today's world. He gave me a "scientific definition of religious fanaticism" which went as follows(paraphrased):

A religious fanatic is someone who believes they know the truth of the universe and the purpose for being and through repetition and brainwashing(religious "education") of that truth they think they know it becomes so ingrained in them that nothing can convince them that truth is not actually real.

Once the human mind accepts beyond a doubt that it knows the truth little or nothing can be done to convince them otherwise and no amount of evidence will convince them, for to question that fundamental knowledge is to bring their entire being into question.



When I pointed out to him that such is the way of most "consensus" scientists today and that they are even worse because they don't believe they know the truth but rather (they believe) that they know that they know the truth he realized he played right into that one himself and decided to just walk away from me rather than address anything I said as a result of his observations.

The Relativists/Big Bangers are so convinced that they are right that no amount of evidence will be considered credible enough to make them reassess their views. Not only that but despite their obviously high intelligence levels they largely fail to even be able to grasp the fact that if you accept a single theory as being true and dismiss any other possibilities you fall victim to indoctrination and become biased and unscientific.

Many scientists will admit that it's entirely possible the prevailing theories are wrong as that's the scientific way, yet they refuse to even allow any other theories to be on the table - contradicting their claims. Even if one theory is generally accepted all other valid scientific theories should remain on the table and be allowed to be openly discussed.

Human kind is definitely in danger from religious fanaticism, but it's the fanatics that call themselves scientists that are by far the most dangerous of all for they have the power to influence or outright control all of man kind in so many different ways.

How many times does mankind have to be misled by those who call themselves scientists but ignore the principles of scientific discovery, honesty and integrity before we finally smarten up and realize that science is no different than any religion in regards to how it can be used to manipulate and control people.

We need to get over this idea that someone holding a PHD is a certified expert and everyone else isn't worth listening to, as you only get a PHD for learning and maintaining the existing views and thus are largely held back from actual scientific discovery and advancement by holding a PHD.

Putting your faith in the fact that a PHD holder knows the truth of the universe is no different than putting your faith in a Bible holding religious leader as religious leaders are products of the same type of indoctrination. There is nothing but the truth they tell you to believe in.

[Osmosis]

Perhaps it's because they forget the P stands for PHILOSOPHY!

[The Great Dog]

Not only that but despite their obviously high intelligence levels they largely fail to even be able to grasp the fact that if you accept a single theory as being true and dismiss any other possibilities you fall victim to indoctrination and become biased and unscientific.

The Great Dog knows this attitude as, "If I hadn't believed it, I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes."

[Ion01]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwFg09gv ... re=related
The link shows lightning on earth as viewed from space. I don't see how it would look any different if there were lightning on jupiter. Also, all because a dark cloud shows up does not mean there is an impact of any sort. Infact, I would image the dark cloud to be more a result of electrical forces than an impact. If you consider how dynamic and strong the winds are that form the storm, and particularly if we consider the storms are electrically driven in the first place, it seams unlikely that a small space rock (small enough that it couldn't be spotted with the telescopes) would fly through a bunch of clouds and sturrs up the storms which are strong and dynamic anyways (not like dropping a pebble in a quite pond but more like a pebble in a pond while a boats are driving around at high speed constantly).
It seams more probable that the lightning, could be triggered by jupiters electrical environment or nearby object, changed the electrical charge in the area which in turn sturrs up the storms and moves material around due to additional charge exchange between the surround storms or material under it. It would be similar to how when lightning strikes here on earth there is an upward movement of charge particles in surounding areas as far as a couple states way due to the change in charge differential.

[Lloyd]

* Today's TPOD is called "What Is Truth?" at http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm, but it's actually about a recent computer simulation that suggests that Jupiter's solid core is twice as large as previously assumed. The TPOD suggests that the simulation is meaningless and deceptive, because, typical of modern astronomy, it overlooks electrical effects.
* It would have been good for the TPOD to mention Thornhill's speculation about Jupiter. I believe he shared with me in a private email a few years ago [or maybe I read it in Thoth or something] that, because the Red Spot is stationary, it must be produced by something on the solid surface of Jupiter, such as a large mountain.
* He seems to regard [as per Thoth {see http://sci2.lefora.com} and http://Holoscience.com] weather phenomena on all planets and other bodies to be electrical, so presumably he regards the Red Spot as electrical as well. I consider the arguments about electrical weather etc to be valid. So the Red Spot may be a stationary cyclone. If so, what makes it red? Is it red dust, or iron dust, or sulphur? Does it involve geysers, or is it like a Martian dust devil?
* In June 2005 I emailed an EU theorist this statement: "You said the “gas giant” planets seem to have solid surfaces" and the theorist replied in the affirmative:

heavy elements would tend to sink to the core. The matter just below the surface of a star should match the composition of the gas giants and the matter just below the surface of the gas giants should match the composition of rocky planets and moons.

* I think this means Jupiter and the other gas giants should have rocky surfaces, instead of frozen hydrogen etc. It also means that stars have similar composition. In the Electric Earth thread, Allyn linked to a hollow Earth site that has good evidence that Earth is hollow, like many geodes. I wonder if the same could be true of gas giants and stars. I guess some geodes are not hollow, so some planets and stars may not be hollow. It may be that beyond a certain size, "geodes" become solid or non-hollow.
* Jupiter's gravity is said to be about 2.5 times Earth's gravity at its surface, so it would be very strenuous on humans to land there, if that were true, but I guess there's a very good chance that it's not true. It may have much lower gravity than thought. Saturn's and Uranus's surfaces are conventionally thought to have gravity about equal to Earth's, so they would be okay to land on, assuming that the temperatures aren't too extreme.
* Venus's atmospheric pressure is said to be 90 times Earth's and that of the gas giants is probably extreme. This site, http://365daysofastronomy.org/2009/10/1 ... to-jupiter , says Jupiter's atmospheric pressure is 20 times Earth's, so that's less than Venus's and much more hospitable. This site, http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-s ... of-jupiter , says its temperature is like Earth's midway into the atmosphere, but maybe 10,000 degrees Kelvin at the surface. That's hotter than the sun's photosphere. I wonder how wrong that might be.

[Lloyd]

* There's also a Little Red Spot, that's apparently about as big as the Great Red Spot under the clouds. The LRS seems to have moved past the GRS, so one of them must not be produced on Jupiter's surface. Here's some info.
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/news/indexv.htm

16 May 2009 - The Little Red Spot on Jupiter (left, lower, orange) is an anti-cyclonic storm formed by 3 separate storms, observed since the 1930s, merging. In 1998 two of them came together; they were joined in 2000 by a 3rd to form a storm roughly the size of Earth. In 2005 it began turning red for unknown reasons and now looks similar to its larger, more famous neighbour, the Great Red Spot. This storm has some of the highest wind speeds ever detected on any planet - peak speed exceeds 384 miles per hour. Unlike hurricanes, which rotate around a centre of low pressure, anti-cyclones rotate around centres of high pressure. On Earth that means that air at lower elevations is forced away from the centre, creating an opening that pulls cold air down from above, leading to low humidity and few clouds; anticyclones often predict fair weather, though special conditions can create anti-cyclonic tornadoes. There have been instances of anti-cyclonic storms on Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune...

Wikipedia

The Jovian atmosphere shows a wide range of active phenomena, including band instabilities, vortices (cyclones and anticyclones), storms and lightning.[7] The vortices reveal themselves as large red, white or brown spots (ovals). The largest two spots are the Great Red Spot (GRS)[8] and Oval BA,[9] which is also red. These two and most of the other large spots are anticyclonic. Smaller anticyclones tend to be white. Vortices are thought to be relatively shallow structures with depths not exceeding several hundred kilometers. Located in the southern hemisphere, the GRS is the largest known vortex in the Solar System. It could engulf several Earths and has existed for at least three hundred years. Oval BA, south of GRS, is a red spot a third the size of GRS that formed in 2000 from the merging of three white ovals.[10]

Jupiter has powerful storms, always accompanied by lightning strikes. The storms are a result of moist convection in the atmosphere connected to the evaporation and condensation of water. They are sites of strong upward motion of the air, which leads to the formation of bright and dense clouds. The storms form mainly in belt regions. The lightning strikes on Jupiter are more powerful than those on Earth. However, there are fewer of them, and the average levels of lightning activity are comparable to those on Earth.[11]

* See also http://www.greatdreams.com/planets/jupiter_storm.htm.