Reconnoitering the Moon

[Jaseli]

Hi everyone,

I wonder if you could clear something up for me. From a previous TPOD post it was predicted that NASA was unlikely to find any water on the moon. NASA are obviously reporting they did find water on the moon, does this mean it was a wrong prediction for the electrical model?

Cheers.

Jas

[solrey]

I don't know if this will help answer your questions or not.

That was not an official EU prediction, AFAIK, and there's nothing on the predictions page regarding LCROSS. There is a prediction page related to the topography of the moon, however.

Here's the last paragraph of the TBPOD Reconnoitering the Moon:

As we have written in past Picture of the Day articles, the search for water on the Moon will most likely fail. The Moon was not formed by innumerable strikes from high-velocity space rocks or thousands of comets out of a hypothetical Oort Cloud. No water was brought to the Moon by millions of cometary ice balls. The morphology of the Moon shows the signs of electric discharge machining as we have argued many times. No water-bearing impactors formed the terrain there. Rather, it was electricity that carved the Moon, and any water that might have once existed there was dispersed into space by the energy released in the events.

emphasis is mine

IMO, that is probably accurate regarding no water from comet impacts.

However, there are personal and "unofficial" predictions for LCROSS, based on EU concepts, that seem to be pretty accurate so far. You kind of have to read the whole thread to get the entire story as more details are presented.

I mentioned that any gases detected would be the result of chemical reactions.

Most, if not all, of the gases detected will be the by-products of electro-chemical/thermatic reaction chains. They'll call it sublimation and photodissociation, though.

What was observed?
A strong UV flash on impact. (NASA: “We aren't sure what that means”) Piezoelectric discharge might be what that means and that UV flash, reported as a flash of sodium, could be evidence to support it.
A rather complex chemical soup, including water vapor, sodium (abundances of Na were a bit of a surprise to NASA, which I predicted btw), carbon dioxide, and possibly methane. I expected a comet like mix of volatile and organic chemicals, and NASA mentioned it was much like a comet, and/or some asteroids. Yeah, I know, previous ancient impacts could deposit similar materials.
A central ejection column of fine dust (finer than expected by NASA, I believe) and vapor that rose more than twice (30km+) as high as predicted by NASA( ~15km). A curtain of heavier material thrown to the sides (which is expected balistically in most impacts anyways) The dust column remained aloft for about four times as long as predicted by NASA. I expected a more energetic impact than NASA predicted, as well as lingering electrostatic dust.
The timeline of the spectrographic data indicate ongoing chemical reactions (NASA mentioned this as part of the data to be examined closer). A very small percentage were actual icy grains so far as they can determine, suspected to be water ice, and the rest of the detected water/hydroxyl groups were in vapor form. I expected that as well, although I'm saying that most of the vapors are by-products of chemical reactions rather than sublimation, and the icy grains are accumulated from molecules and grains migrating across the TCS, of which the water/hydroxyls, among other molecules including CH4, were created by reactions with solar plasma stream protons and silicates in the lunar regolith.

Remember also that these were basically preliminary findings by NASA and the details will be disclosed later. I expect the spectral signature of the vapors (including H2O and OH) will indicate excitation from an electric field, which would be generated by the piezoelectric effect.


Cheers

[nick c]

Jaseli,
Welcome to the Thunderbolts forum.

I wonder if you could clear something up for me. From a previous TPOD post it was predicted that NASA was unlikely to find any water on the moon. NASA are obviously reporting they did find water on the moon, does this mean it was a wrong prediction for the electrical model?

The TPOD in question, [url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... 19moon.htm]Reconnoitering the Moon[/url2], is disputing the proposition that frozen water exists on the surface of the Moon in permanently shadowed areas near the poles.

After the data was analyzed, scientists announced that the south pole of the Moon contained pockets of water ice shielded from the Sun by shadows cast from the walls of deep craters.

This paints a picture of frozen lakes, ponds, glaciers etc. occupying the permanently shaded floors of craters or valleys of the polar regions. I don't know that the LCROSS data warrants such a conclusion at this time, though the claim for the discovery of water seems to be justified.
The existence of water on the Moon is not a test for the EU. This is evident by the wording in the TPOD, "the search for water on the Moon will most likely fail" (my underline). The author, Steve Smith, is not putting his prediction out there as an "[url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimentum_crucis]experimentum crucis[/url2]" for the electric model but rather, is making his own conjecture (and he may yet turn out to be correct.) There is nothing about EU theory that precludes the existence of water on any other celestial body. Indeed, water is common through out the solar system.
[For example, the electric model states that the features that determine an object to be labeled a "comet" are caused by the body moving through and interacting with a changing electrical environment, not by sublimating ices. So even though the electric model is in opposition to the "dirty snowball" model of comets, that doesn't mean that there can't be a large chunk of ice out there in an elliptical orbit around the Sun! The EU is merely stating that this is not the requirement for something to be a comet.]

Nick

[Jaseli]

Thank you very much