Electric Comets

[dahlenaz]

Did they actually say that this comet,, in its present form,, is billions of years old??

While reading over their website, i thought i rhed that this was a short period comet,
and as such,, it had been recently dislodged from a former location.. And i thought
that the dislodging was by a collision of some sort... So, the comet's appearance should
not be unexpected, if bodies can survive being dislodged from one location and then
venture into an eliptical orbit of the sun in a modified confuguration...
This body looks like it fits into that scenario.. Its new life does seem to be supported
by its appearance, a collapse pit at one end, an impact crater on another face and some
very animated features elsewhere.. It does have some features which look like they
fit into the electric scenario of surface modification,, but that seems to only account
for some of the features. The crater perched on the rim of the end-pit is probably
and EDM feature,, but that doesn't mean that the end-pit was formed electrically.
Pits should be an expected feature for a body which experiences a thermal transformation
while in a space environment.. what was once heated will then cool from the outside
inward and contract in upon itself in the process. d...z

...

[dahlenaz]

The following statement was just seen at the link provided below, so i did a search
for "double-lobed" on the site and did not come up with any explanation for how
a double-lobed-nucleus body forms, according to electric theory.

As most of our readers will know, the double-lobed form of the nucleus,
similar to the observed forms of so many comets and asteroids, is no surprise
to electrical theorists.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/0 ... edictions/

Can anyone point me to an article that explains the dynamics which can account
for this form.. Apparently, it is common knowledge.

If all asteroids and comets are material ejected from castrophic events,, wouldn't
that put them on trajectories of radial geometry during their initial days?
Large bodies tumbling into space might have small companions which then unite
but that would seem to be a rather fragile joining, a factor that Rossetta might want
to consider before setting its hooks..
If objects were deformed while being tumbled into space they might look like this comet,,
but then what about the flattened side with a domed center? There doesn't seem to be
a lot of cratering on that side for that feature to have been machined.. d...z

...

[viscount aero]

Did they actually say that this comet,, in its present form,, is billions of years old??

While reading over their website, i thought i rhed that this was a short period comet,
and as such,, it had been recently dislodged from a former location.. And i thought
that the dislodging was by a collision of some sort... So, the comet's appearance should
not be unexpected, if bodies can survive being dislodged from one location and then
venture into an eliptical orbit of the sun in a modified confuguration...
This body looks like it fits into that scenario.. Its new life does seem to be supported
by its appearance, a collapse pit at one end, an impact crater on another face and some
very animated features elsewhere.. It does have some features which look like they
fit into the electric scenario of surface modification,, but that seems to only account
for some of the features. The crater perched on the rim of the end-pit is probably
and EDM feature,, but that doesn't mean that the end-pit was formed electrically.
Pits should be an expected feature for a body which experiences a thermal transformation
while in a space environment.. what was once heated will then cool from the outside
inward and contract in upon itself in the process. d...z

...

Impact cratering on this body is highly unlikely to zero.

[dahlenaz]

Did they actually say that this comet,, in its present form,, is billions of years old??

snip
The crater perched on the rim of the end-pit is probably
and EDM feature,, but that doesn't mean that the end-pit was formed electrically.
Pits should be an expected feature for a body which experiences a thermal transformation
while in a space environment.. what was once heated will then cool from the outside
inward and contract in upon itself in the process. d...z

...

Impact cratering on this body is highly unlikely to zero.

Do you have any evidence at hand with which to present a
convincing case or do i just take your word for it?

I base my statement on experiments and the appearance of their results..
See this web page for one example as this new effort begins: d...z
http://para-az.com/comet67p-cg/feature-likeness.html

...

[Bomb20]

I base my statement on experiments and the appearance of their results..
See this web page for one example as this new effort begins: d...z
http://para-az.com/comet67p-cg/feature-likeness.html

I am afraid I did not get the meaning of the experiment in question. Do you think one could compare impacts of water drops on semi-liquified material with impacts of solid bodies on celestial objects?

[dahlenaz]

I base my statement on experiments and the appearance of their results.
See this web page for one example as this new effort begins: d...z
http://para-az.com/comet67p-cg/feature-likeness.html

I am afraid I did not get the meaning of the experiment in question. Do you think one could compare impacts of water drops on semi-liquified material with impacts of solid bodies on celestial objects?

You've over-looked something,,, I am only comparing the end result,,
the appearance of one thing to another, since appearance is all we
can be sure of at this point,,,
and, considering that none of my EDM experiments
produce results comparable to the appearance of that crater.

So many people, in their one-dimensional thinking, are assuming
that at the time of impact a body's surface is solid and that
the impacting body is a solid rather than a conglomerate or a
super-heated mass, that is barely staying together...

We see the images now of its inactive surface,, its cold deadness,
but it has not always been that way and we may get a first hand
look at how it changes in the months ahead. Hopefully a CME will
launch a barrage at it when it is most vunerable.. Maybe that will
provide some additional clues. d...z

...

[querious]

I was watching this video of Comet Lovejoy...

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibr ... merges.m4v

over & over because something was puzzling about it, & I think I just figured out!

The tail of the comet shows the last remaining OPPOSITE charge being attracted to the sun. Then, when the comet reaches 4/5 of the way through the frame, the comet reaches neutrality, then quickly has LIKE charge begin to rain onto it, which quickly causes the tail dust to begin to REPEL. You can almost see the comet slowing down, then speed up again as the like/repulsive charge buildup hurls the comet away again.

What it a bunch of times and you'll see the sudden change!

Anyone agree?

From the follow-up article http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... etlovejoy/

"We've collected a mountain of data," says Knight. "But there are some things we're still having trouble explaining."

For instance, what made Lovejoy's tail wiggle so wildly when it entered the solar corona? Perhaps it was in the grip of the sun's powerful magnetic field.

What caused Lovejoy to lose its tail inside the sun's atmosphere—and then regain it later? “This is one of the biggest mysteries to me,” says Battams.

And then there is the ultimate existential puzzle: How did Comet Lovejoy survive at all?"

Imagine their surprise! When the comet is supposed to be boiling away furiously in the million-degree corona, the tail doesn't swell like crazy, it just DIES AWAY! But it makes perfect sense if the tail is an electric phenomenon!

[trevbus]

New Scientist 10 Aug 2013 has an article identifying high levels of radiation causing increased Carbon 14 levels in tree rings

An anglo-saxon chronicle said serpents emerged from the ground. Scientist Usoskin identifies this as an enhanced aurorae.

The event is attributed to a comet hitting the Sun though of course no electrical explanation is given, it is purely kinetic

[Sparky]

On November 11, Rosetta will make history again when it deploys a tiny lander craft called Philae, which will attempt to touch down on the comet's desolately beautiful surface.

Mission managers have now announced that Philae will target Site J for the landing, an intriguing location which scientists say offers both nearby active regions for study and minimum risk to the lander.

Rosetta and Philae will study Comet 67P for the next year to unlock some of the secrets of this primordial vestige of the early solar system.

Sure, unless the lander floats away.

How much gravity is needed to hold the lander down?

Check out the high resolution image here: http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201409/r13 ... 520029.jpg

[Spektralscavenger]

The Rosetta discovery must be the check mate to the ice ball theory. If the theory doesn´t die and is buried today will never be.

[starbiter]

The TPOD linked below is a wonderful reminder about the electrical nature of comets. The odd shape of 67P might produce two comets some day.

The description from the TPOD implies different charges in the two comet fragments.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... 7biela.htm

"But of all the scientific details about comet Biela, perhaps none stands out more dramatically than the fact almost never mentioned—a jet forming between the two nuclear fragments when they were 2 million kilometers apart. In the purely gravitational and mechanical terms that astronomers have sought to apply to comets, this jet is inconceivable. But when we remember how inconsequential is gravity in the presence of the electric force, the improbability disappears."

Parts 1 and 3 are also worth reading.

michael

[Rossim]

http://www.space.com/27377-moon-water-o ... -wind.html

An article on space.com has revealed that scientists have determined the water in the lunar soil is not due to constant impacts of chondrites, the origin is the solar wind. I think in conjunction with all of the direct observations of comet 67P, some "clever" scientist is going to apply this mechanism of solar wind producing water to the comet. I truly believe this is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[flyingcloud]

hope is still alive

[MrAmsterdam]

So the moon needs the sun for water generation? So under the right circumstances (the properties of the environment) a star generates water in its surrounding planets...

So that puts things in a very very different perspective on the origin of water.

The effects seems to be replicated in a lab.

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-lunar-soil ... comet.html

Water needs two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. If silicates provide one atom of each element, then only one more hydrogen atom is needed. Conveniently, hydrogen atoms are available in abundance in the solar wind, where they are found as high-energy protons (hydrogen atoms stripped off their electrons). If the conditions are right, this charged hydrogen atom can react on a dust particle's rim to form water.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-solar-spac ... y.html#jCp

So a bit of crystal dust particles and a bit of 'sunwind" will make water...

[viscount aero]

http://www.space.com/27377-moon-water-o ... -wind.html

An article on space.com has revealed that scientists have determined the water in the lunar soil is not due to constant impacts of chondrites, the origin is the solar wind. I think in conjunction with all of the direct observations of comet 67P, some "clever" scientist is going to apply this mechanism of solar wind producing water to the comet. I truly believe this is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

This is a big Pandora's Box opening upon the establishment. But it's too hot for them handle, though. They remain selectively blind.

From the mainstream space.com press release article: "Atoms of hydrogen in the solar wind can react with oxygen trapped in moon rocks to form water."

So why can they not connect the dots? Why the constant and preposterous press release meme of "comets seeded the Earth's oceans"? When will they stop making such egregiously incorrect assertions about comets and the Earth if they can deduce what they have about the Moon's water?