Crisp New Detail Revealed in Stunning New Ceres Photo

discovery.com ^ | May 28, 2015 05:50 PM ET | Ian O'Neill

[BenLurkin]

NASA’s Dawn spacecraft is beginning to get up-close and personal with dwarf planet Ceres, as this latest image shows.

In this photo, which was snapped by the orbiting spacecraft at an altitude of 3,200 miles (5,100 kilometers) on May 23, imaged the landscape at a resolution of 480 meters per pixel, revealing craters and craters of craters — the divots blasted out of the surface by the resulting impact debris. Of particular note are the apparent horizontal lines of craters or gullies that appear throughout the field of view.

[Blennos]

Thank you for the explanation.

[Talisker]

It's 20 after 2 you stupid Vulcan.

Vulcan's are generally digital, my good sir.

And Vulcan Science Officers prefer radians.

[Swordmaker]

Thank you for the explanation.

You're welcome, Blennos.

[outofsalt]

Now that is hugh and Ceres!

[Swordmaker]

Now that is hugh and Ceres!

It's grainy too. . .

[Moonman62]

Yep. The whackadoodle theory has a new playground for awhile.

[Noumenon]

That’s the spray on orange peel texture I used on our great room walls and ceiling.

[Swordmaker]

And you have yet to explain a single thing I have challenged you to explain. I'm still awaiting your gravity cosmology explanation of this:

Butterfly Nebula

Or this one:

Ant Nebula (Menzel 3)

Both of which show clear plasma phenomenon and Z pinch electric arc mode and glow discharge typical of plasmas. . . and twisted birkeland currents. Not a single thing about them is explicable using only gravity.

Carina Nebula double Herbig Haro

Then there are Herbig Haro objects that stay cohesive across multiple light years and also show helix structures and are also inexplicable to gravity cosmologists. . . yet are completely explainable in the Electric Universe cosmology, and are capable of duplication in the Plasma laboratory and scalable.

All you have done is throw brickbats of links to old smoke blowing cosmology that cannot and doesn't explain anything.

By-the-way, where are all the dirty snowball comets? All the comets we've visited so far seem to be rock, indistinguishable from asteroids, with no ice. . . and are electrically charged.

[Moonman62]

I explained it some months ago and you stopped bothering me with the craziness, now like all craziness it is coming back.

As I recall faster moving jets are colliding with slower moving jets that were ejected previously.

[Swordmaker]

I explained it some months ago and you stopped bothering me with the craziness, now like all craziness it is coming back.

No, you did not.

[Swordmaker]

As I recall faster moving jets are colliding with slower moving jets that were ejected previously.

Gravity cosmology cannot explain the jets, cannot explain how it holds together, nor can they explain the bilateral symmetry. They cannot explain any of the features seen inside what they refer to as "hot gases," why they are hot, or explain why it radiates in the x-Ray ranges. They cannot explain why they are everywhere they look in the sky. If they were what they claim, they'd be very rare. They are not. They are common. They fly in the face of standard gravity laws and Boyle's Law of how gases act when uncontained. They are at a complete loss to explain any of it. The use ad hoc claims that do not hold up to examination. They cannot even begin to explain any of it.

[Moonman62]

I will no longer respond to you directly on your nutty idea. Please stop making Conservatives look like ignorant weirdos.

[Smellin Salt]

He said spackle

[Swordmaker]

I will no longer respond to you directly on your nutty idea. Please stop making Conservatives look like ignorant weirdos.

I am not nutty or ignorant. There have been Nobel Laureates who have been involved in this cosmology. You just cannot explain them. So you will retire without trying because you really cannot. Thanks for not playing and demonstrating you cannot.

[Swordmaker]

Electric Universe Ping

<
The serial lines of parallel craters on Ceres are worth a PING to the Electric Universe List

If you want on or off the Electric Universe Ping List, Freepmail me.

[Moonman62]

The “Electric Universe” (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the universe can be better explained by electromagnetism than by gravity. The exact claims are diverse and vary from crank to crank author to author. A common motif is the insistence that all science should be done in a laboratory — an attempt to throw away gravity from the very beginning, because one can’t put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory. Most Electric Universe proponents claim some kind of relation to the “plasma cosmology” of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvén. Too bad his model was rendered obsolete by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology.[2]

EU advocates can be roughly split into two groups: garden-variety physics cranks who are convinced that they have a legitimate revolutionary scientific theory, and various woo-peddlers who use EU claims to prop their main ideas (because mainstream physics would blow them apart).

Immanuel Velikovsky was an enthusiastic early adopter of electric universe ideas, seeing in them a possible mechanism to explain his scenario of planetary billiards, cosmic thunderbolts, and the notion that Earth was previously a satellite of Saturn.

Claims

Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.

Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges.[3] The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.[4]

The Sun is negatively charged, and the solar wind is positively charged — the two systems forming a giant capacitor (this is James McCanney’s particular erroneous belief.)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe

[Swordmaker]

You've posted that before. Repeating the same claims over and over proves nothing. It uses ad hominem arguments to attack the people it disagrees with (Global Warming and "settled science" deniers, anyone?) and is therefore invalid on its face. "Crank to crank author" apparently includes nobel laureates and many physicists and astronomers who just happen to ask why certain observations are being swept under the rug?

A common motif is the insistence that all science should be done in a laboratory — an attempt to throw away gravity from the very beginning, because one can’t put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory.

That is a total misrepresentation of what the claims of EU proponents are making. EU proponents DO NOT insist that all science should be done in the laboratory. That's a straw man fallacy. More proof your article proves nothing and is wrong, arguing points never made.

EU proponents state that many of the things that are being seen in the Universe are duplicatable in the plasma laboratory and are completely scalable to the macrocosmic simply by the addition of more power. . . and these laboratory experiments have indicated things to look for that were eventually FOUND in space in the macrocosmic scale, validating the observed linkage. This much simpler explanation can explain everything we see without invoking the "magic" fairy dust of dark matter and magical power of dark energy, adding tremendous fudge factors into their observations, which Gravity cosmology repeatedly trots out to get their theories to even work.

The EU cosmology does not require any magic fairy dust or magical power to work.

Thanks for the attempt. . . but arguing things that were never claimed is poor debating technique.

The real problem is that Gravity cosmologists have been the ones that have literally thrown away a force that is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, is demonstrably equally infinite in reach, can be seen in action right in front of their eyes every where we look, and instead of selected a the weaker force as the ultimate driver of the Universe.

They made an unsupportable declaration that "There are no charges in space!" and proceeded as if it were true, without evidence. Yet everything we've discovered since that declaration shows us that there are charges everywhere we look in space, but they refuse to revisit that declaration. It is why they are continually surprised at what they find. They cannot help but be surprised when they deny it can exist! Their declaration was and is ultimately illogical!

Try answering the questions about the objects I posted above from a gravity cosmology that WORKS. . . because the gravity cosmologists have so far failed miserably. They are constantly being surprised by what is being seen in deep space that EU cosmologists are predicting will be seen.

The test of any theory is how well does it predict future discoveries. So far Gravity Cosmology is failing miserably, while EU cosmology is doing very well in the prediction business.

Start by telling us how a strong magnetic field can exist without an equally strong flowing electric current. . . and then tell us through what medium is that electric current flowing to build that magnetic field. Yet Gravity cosmology seems to think that magnetic fields exist all, against all science, all by themselves.

They've finally started to get the idea with the sun, talking about magnetic "disconnection and reconnection" and the "explosions" associated with them. . . but they are ignoring what causes them. They've just renamed something that Hannes Alfvèn discovered over 100 years ago and named then. . . but they don't want to give any credence to the EU people who have been telling them this for years.

While you are at it, try telling us how a lower solar atmospheric temperature sun of just 8000 K (with a surface temperature even lower) can, by mere convection, give rise to an upper solar atmosphere temperature of more than 1,500,000 K? I know you can't because the solar physicists can't explain it. The EU cosmologists can. How do you explain the solar wind accelerates the farther you get from the sun? Gravity cosmology cannot explain it.

[Moonman62]

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/testing-electric-universe/

[sargon]

Gravity cosmology cannot explain the jets...

I'm surethat there's plenty of things that gravity cosmology can't explain at the moment.

But that doesn't mean that the "Electric Universe" cosmology is correct.

There are just too many things that the "Electric Universe" cosmology has serious problems explaining away.

Stars as fusion furnaces, for example. The gravitational model, despite whatever inadequacies it may have, seems to be supported more by the preponderance of scientific evidence.

I'm sure some of the electrical phenomena are perfectly real in some cases, but it doesn't mean that the "Electric Universe" is the more correct cosmology.

The fact is, the scientific paradigm is overwhelmingly in favor of gravitational cosmology, in a way that is much more compelling and convincing than, say, Climate Change science is.

Could the huge majority of scientists be absolutely wrong about that? Yes. But is it likely at this point, given what we understand about the universe? Not likely.

I've read enough scientific comparisons between the two models to convince me that the "Electric Universe" is not sufficient to explain the bulk of phenomena we observe in the universe.

Hey, maybe MOND is correct, and there's really no such thing as Dark Matter. But it looks like Dark Matter is being more and more experimentally validated.

There's a web site which I found useful in learning about all sorts of issues relating to physics. Ah, here it is:

Brian K Oberlein's Web Site

I've found it very informative.

[Swordmaker]

Hey, maybe MOND is correct, and there's really no such thing as Dark Matter. But it looks like Dark Matter is being more and more experimentally validated.

I really disagree. We have NEVER found any dark matter. None. Everything about dark matter can be explained with the EU cosmology. Same with the Stars. The fusion model for the stars is really just a theory and there are huge problems as I outlined in a the questions above about how does a star with an 8000K lower atmosphere heat an upper atmosphere to 1.5million K by convection. NOT one fusion physicist has come up with any kind of rational explanation. . . especially when it is a fact that looking through sun spots we see that the surface below the lower atmosphere is even COOLER than the lower atmosphere. They keep coming up with more and more ad hoc reasoning to prop up the Fusion model including the ad hoc claim that Neutrinos somehow mutate into different neutrinos on their way to Earth to explain why there are not enough of them to support their model. . . with out actually measuring the neutrinos at start or in the processor of mutation. It's a convenient explanation to make an inconvenient problem just go away. They don't tell anyone it's all theoretical.

Again, I return to the adage that the test of any theory is how well it predicts future findings and discoveries. So far the EU cosmology is doing dang well.