Posted on 09/09/2006 8:45:54 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Though NASA officials have said nothing on the subject, astronomy today is on the edge of a critical shift in perception—a revolution that could redefine our view of the heavens.
Above, the “Great Comet” of 1996, Hyakutake. The stunning discovery of X-ray emissions from the visitor
was a milestone in comet science, as was the discovery that the comet's coherent and filamentary ion tail
spanned more than 350 million miles. - Credit: NASA
Proponents of the “Electric Universe” say that a revolution in the sciences is inescapable, and they believe the failure of modern comet theory could be the tipping point. The high-energy events exhibited by comets require a new understanding of what makes a comet work, and the answer to the mystery of comets will invariably affect all of the space sciences. For starters, a list of the enigmas would have to include these surprises: comet x-rays, a coma several times the size of the Sun glowing in ultraviolet light, strong electrical and turbulent magnetic fields, million degree coma “temperatures”, supersonic jets, collimation of these jets over great distances, coherent and filamentary comet tails spanning up to a hundred million miles and more, explosive outbursts of dust hundreds of millions of miles from the Sun, the “inexplicable” break up and complete disintegration of comet nuclei far from the Sun, sharply etched surface relief, bright surface patches (camera saturation, most obvious in the case of Tempel 1), and “impossibly” fine comet dust. Intense energetic activity has, one discovery at a time, shocked astronomers. But in fact every surprise points in the same direction.
For several years the electrical theorists have predicted that the fatal blow to modern comet mythology will come from the absence of sufficient water ice or other ices on a comet nucleus to produce the jets and coma. This prediction has already been fulfilled, but the message has yet to register. After repeated failures to find any water on comet surfaces, NASA spokesmen celebrated the “success” of the Deep Impact mission when they thought they had found, on the surface of Comet Tempel 1, a minuscule .005 of the water required by theory to explain the signals associated with water in the coma.
When findings repeatedly discredit an accepted model in the sciences, it’s time to consider the findings from a different vantage point –to look for a pattern that has been missed. For the electrical theorists, the pattern is too obvious to be missed. The unexplained features are predictable effects of an electric discharge, and nothing that an electrical expert would look for is missing from NASA’s discoveries.
It is also inconceivable that the collapse of comet theory could stand as an isolated event in astronomy. The physical universe is not a bundle of contradictions, even if modern “explanations” are. A comet discharging electrically as it approaches the Sun means simply that the Sun is the focus of electrical activity strong enough to produce the observed cometary phenomena. That includes the visible flare-up of comets while in “deep freeze” beyond the orbit of Saturn. The implication, according to Electric Universe advocates, is that sufficient electrical energy is available from the galaxy to power the Sun. A tiny charged comet occasionally taps into that solar circuit to produce a visible display.
But in the past 75 years, most astronomers never entertained electricity as a source of energy in the cosmos – despite its usefulness to mankind. A Sun energized electrically will be much more of a “shock to the system” than an electric comet. For decades we’ve been assured that the science of the Sun is well established—a few i’s to dot, a few t’s to cross, and little to fret about. But those expressing this confidence had no training in electrical discharges in thin plasma. Instead they treated the solar wind merely as a wind, with a weak magnetic field thrown in. They did not see that the magnetic field and the reaction of a comet to the solar wind, when interpreted as electrical phenomena, answer the greatest mysteries of the Sun.
Why, for example, do the charged particles of the solar wind defy gravity and continue to accelerate as they move away from the Sun, out past the planets? And how is it that the temperature of the Sun leaps from a few thousand degrees at the surface to a million degrees above the surface, at the corona?
These questions are easy to explain if the energy is coming from outside the Sun. In the electrical model, the Sun (like all stars) is an anode, or positively charged focus within a galactic discharge. The Sun's electrical influence extends out to a plasma sheath, incorrectly called the heliopause, far beyond the orbit of Pluto. The electrical acceleration of the solar wind and the ion tail of a comet, therefore, is exactly what should happen, and there is no other credible explanation of this phenomenon.
Those who are not trained in plasma discharge behavior are unaware that throughout almost the entire volume of space within the Sun's plasma sheath, the electric field remains weak but constant in strength, representing an immense electric potential across the vast distance to the boundary of the Sun’s electrical domain. It is not until charged particles are very close to the Sun that they experience strong electric fields in 'double layers' that heat the solar corona and form the global electrical storm we call a star.
The electrical theorists Wallace Thornhill and Don Scott have enumerated at least two dozen enigmas of solar behavior that immediately disappear when you grant the same electric field that is implied by the electric comet.
And what of planetary science? From an electrical vantage point, the electric arcs that have carved the surfaces of comets can be compared to those that, in an earlier phase of solar system history, etched the surfaces of planets and moons. The astronomer's bafflement at recent close-up images of comets is just like their response to enigmatic surface features of larger rocky bodies in the solar system—from the tortured surfaces of Venus and Mars to the alien worlds of Jupiter and Saturn. The sharply sculpted nuclei of comets reveal the same features we see on rocky planets and moons—craters, rilles, spires, mountains, ridges, mesas rising from flat valley floors and etched relief—just the opposite of what astronomers had expected. Of course, the prevailing model of comets, envisioning a sublimating chunk of dirty ice, does not allow that similar features could have similar causes, though that is precisely the message of the electric theorists.
To see planetary history in the terms implied by the electrical interpretation, it will be essential that science free itself from the modern fable of the “uneventful solar system”—planets moving on unchanging orbits for billions of years. The fable originated as a theoretical conjecture long before the space age began. Geological models of the 1950's did not envision the pictures of planetary violence returned from space, because they imagined isolated bodies moving like undisturbed clockwork for aeons. More than any other discovery of the space age, the electric comet will force a reconsideration of solar system evolution, with a new appreciation for the role of planetary instability and global catastrophe. What happens to comets happened in the past on a planetary scale. The present stable order of the solar system is new.
The picture of the macrocosm will change as well. If the electric force was active in solar system evolution, our little enclave in the Milky Way could hardly be an exception to a rule. Electric events evident in our neighborhood must have countless analogs in deep space. How, then, could popular cosmological theories based on a gravity-driven universe retain their hold on scientific imagination? By following the evidence, one will confront the single most costly theoretical mistake of the twentieth century: the belief that we live in an electrically sterile universe. When that mistake is corrected, the universe will no longer resemble the “big picture” that dominates popular science. And the disappearance of the big bang, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and neutron stars from the lexicon of astronomy will be a mere beginning.
Exciting timeThe radiation traces the interaction between the neutral water molecules and the solar wind, the stream of charged, heavy particles that continually billow away from the Sun.
"The solar wind particles smash into the cometary particles and a process which we call 'charge exchange' occurs," explained Dr Paul O'Brien, also of Leicester University.
"The upshot is that the heavy ions from the Sun get into an excited state and then they de-excite themselves by emitting photons of light which turn out to be X-rays, typically.
"Essentially, the more material liberated, the more X-rays are produced."
The X-ray power output depends on both the water production rate from the comet and the local conditions of the solar wind in the vicinity of the comet, which at the time was about 130 million km from Earth.
First of all, the Swift X-ray telescope cannot determine what is claimed in this article. As a matter of fact, what they are suggesting is a hypothesis of what the data they collected means. Their spectra can indicate Oxygen... and it can indicate Hydrogen... but it cannot indicate H2O.
Most of the detections of “water” were from the coma, and there was much less than expected, at first. The instruments much closer to Tempel 1 found less than 1% of the amount of "water" that was expected to be found. The other obsservers also kept watch on the comet for days afterwards. The detection of “water” in a comet’s coma does not indicate that the comet has an icy composition. The detection is actually of the hydroxyl (OH) radical, which standard theory interprets as water (HOH) that has been decomposed by solar radiation. But EDM of the comet’s rocky nucleus will sputter negative ions, including oxygen (O-) and OH- ions, which will combine with H+ ions from the solar wind to yield (OH) and (HOH). Negative cometary ions have been discovered close to comet nuclei and are a puzzle for comet theorists because the ions are easily destroyed by solar radiation.
Swift technique is an unproved hypothesis?
In May of this year (2006), the Swift X-Ray telescope was used to track Comet 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 which is the brightest comet ever detected in the X-ray band. They are going to see if it is indeed possible to detect the composition of the coma and tail from the x-ray spectra. Although Comet 73P is by far the most X-ray active comet every seen... and it is much closer to Earth (7.3million miles) than Tempel 1 (83 million)... and the Coma and Tail are much larger and more pronounced, and the despite the observation of the comet over several weeks, the information they have found is no where near as definitive as the BBC article you linked claimed was possible.
The comet is so close that astronomers are hoping to determine not only the composition of the comet but also of the solar wind. Scientists think that atomic particles that comprise the solar wind interact with comet material to produce X-rays, a theory that Swift might prove true. . . .. . . Swift and the other three X-ray observatories plan to combine forces to observe Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 closely. Through a technique called spectroscopy, scientists hope to determine the chemical structure of the comet. Already Swift has detected oxygen and hints of carbon. These elements are from the solar wind, not the comet.
Another report claims that actual ice was seen by infrared spectrometry on the surface of Tempel 1. From the NASA article on this:
According to the new research in Science, the comet’s surface features three pockets of thin ice. The area the ice covers is small. The surface area of Tempel 1 is roughly 45 square miles or 1.2 billion square feet. The ice, however, covers roughly 300,000 square feet. And only 6 percent of that area consists of pure water ice. The rest is dust.
Tempel 1, 4 seconds from impact - White bar on lower left is 1 Kilometer scale
I find this hard to credit. We have a very thin layer of "ice" that was seen by an infrared camera. These 3 pockets of ice total 300,000 square feet out of 1,200,000,000 square feet of surface area (0.025%)... and only 18,000 square feet are actually visible as ice??? That is 0.0015% of the surface area... and these were seen and analysed with a camera from a photograph that has a surface detail resolution of 5 meters/pixel?
"Ice" pools on Tempel 1 in false color blue
Assuming ALL 18000 square feet of ice were one large square pool, then it would be ~2000 square meters... or a pool of ice about 8-9 pixels on a side. If we make the assumption that ALL 300,000 square feet of ice claimed were visible and measurable, clear of a dust covering, then it would still be only a square ~37 pixels on a side on the photographs NASA has. That's the theoretical best case... I doubt these "pools" of "ice" would be even one pixel wide. It might be worth pointing out that infrared has a lower resolution than visible light. Something smells of "We need to justify the cost of this space mission with results proving our theories."
Hmmmmmmm
And the connection to zero-point energy might be???
Now, now, Swordmaker.
Do you really expect dyed-in-the-wool traditionalists to be influenced by and impressed with . . .
FACTS????
And that's your scientific expectation of them??? LOL.
Personally, I think the . . . unfolding of unexpected things in the cosmos has barely begun. But what do I know. I'm just a curious layman . . . and a literalist Bible reader, at that.
Walt Thornhill, on July 3, 2005, one day before the event, made 19 specific predictions about what would happen when the impactor from Deep Impact struck Comet Tempel 1... all of the contrary to accepted expectations. All 19 of them occurred, much to the surprise of orthodox cosmologists and cometary scientists. His predictions based on his theories were right... theirs were wrong. What does that say about their theories???
= = = =
There's that Doctrine of Scientific Infallibility in the halls of the religion of science again! LOL. Expecting traditionalists to change their spots can be akin to expecting Hyper Calvinists to see the light about any degree of free will God may have imparted to us.
I do greatly appreciate your catching this advance in scientific understanding of comets and the cosmos. And, I think it's hillariously funny that it upsets the traditionalists so. I think part of me loves to see tidy tiny little boxed prissy fossilized assumptions and constructions in reality get blown to bits. Lets the fresh air in.
Have a blessed Sunday and week. Thanks much.
Been a while since I read his stuff on that score. Last I recall, he has a list of 'confirming' evidence on most of the main features of stuff he's talking about. I think the face on Mars has been left a bit in the dust because of the city on Mars that some of his more recent stuff is about--including, evidently, very startling photos supposedly taken directly off NASA craft's transmissions or some such. He's certainly a fascinating character regardless of what's on or not on Mars.
Mostly, in terms of Mars, I don't trust the traditional stereotypic explanations from the standard folks much at all. Doesn't mean I trust Hoagland 100's of percent more. I just figure he's got to be more honest and true to reality than the traditionalists. Too many folks with too much globalist special interests stuff have been too much in charge of the traditionalists for too long for me to put much stock in their constructions on reality.
Besides, Hoagland's more fun.
Am surprised you are so incredulous about the new comet stuff listed. Are you insisting you don't believe that the new observations are factual??? Or you just have a hard time letting go of familiar traditional constructions on comet reality???
Are you speaking from solid . . . info . . .
or from speculation and theorizing?
I happen to think you're right, BTW . . . at least to a large degree.
Fascinating facts and evidence. Thanks tons.
Occam's Razor requires a set of facts from which to work... The problem is the "facts" the current comet theorist have been using have been shot down, one by one, by their own comet expeditions.
= = = =
Amen.
That old Shiboleth gets so wearying. It's like some unalterable and automatically new idea shredding something from some super Mt Sinai in terms of how the poster citing it usually flings it about.
There's some merit in simple explanations, certainly--in a vast number of contexts.
But a lot of times, the naysayers seem absolutely oblivious to how convoluted, twisted, tortured, complex etc. current traditionalist explanations are compared to alternative ones. Hypocrisy runs rampant in the application of Ocam's razor, it seems to me.
And, interestingly, a lot of the Ocam Razor Flingers seem oblivious to the simplest explanation around for a lot of things about the Cosmos.
God is.
"Moreover, if gravity were a complete theory, it would show a full range of transitional forms. No one has ever found the missing links in gravity; instead it is presented as fact, with no adequate explanation of its origins. Gravity has not been shown to be irreducibly complex, which undermines the claims for a universal theory.
"There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal basis. For example, the observed behavior of the earth revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity. Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy. "
There are two elephanty-in-the-living-room type problems with Einstein's explanation of gravity as a property of mass and space. One is that you cannot start with that and easily believe that gravity on our own planet had ever changed substantially, but it is an easy demonstration that it has; the super animals of past ages would be crushed by their own weight in our present world. The second elephant in the living room is that gravity propagates instantaneously to within our ability to measure it, while Einstein had pretty much declared that information cannot be passed around faster than C. That's clearly wrong: whenever you take five steps, you are sending a message out into the cosmos, and somebody on the far side of our galaxy with a sensitive enough instrument could read that message, and it would not take him 50,000 years to do it. It probably would not even take as much as one fifty-thousandth of one second.
Computer engineers are clearly wasting their time trying to work around the speed of light in components. They should be working on gravity computing.
One group which is very definitely wasting its time is SETI. Any advanced civilization with a need to communicate across cosmic distances will assuredly not be trying to do it with electromagnetic radiation moving at C, but rather with whatever is behind gravity at near infinite speed. Trying to communicate across cosmic distances with radio waves is like me trying to send a message to relatives in Bremen by splashing pebbles in Baltimore harbor and hoping the Germans can read the message on the ripple waves when they get there.
Interesting. Thanks.
Thanks for your thoughtful responses. Have you seen this link?
From one of our beloved FREEPERS:
NASA airbrushed out structures on the far side of the moon. ( 3 minutes 55 sec. long )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rt7mnz4J5E
I am confused. Are you against dinosaurs or against gravity? Or opposed to Einstein?
Is there something about 0.02 millisec, 20 microseconds, that particularly excites you?
Oh! Apparent size as observed from Earth! What distances are we talking? Couple million miles? Thats still a massive object that would be visible anywhere in the solar system.The Moon has the same apparent size as the Sun, and is about 1/4 million miles away. It is indeed visible throughout the Solar System, well, probably. Not too sure it has an ultraviolet coma, which is what was under discussion (IOW, not a solid object larger than the Sun, or even than the Moon).
Do you have any idea how blinding all those ultraviolet comets would be to Hubble? It sees in ultraviolet, visible light, and near-infrared.That's fascinating, because there are scientific abstracts, by actual scientists, online about ultraviolet comas.
Any of you guys ever heard of Occam's Razor? You ought to look it up.Ever heard of reading comprehension? You could try looking it up, but it probably won't do you any good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.