Electric Universe theory is bolstered by recent data.

michaelmozina · Oct 26, 2007

EU theories related to comets seems to offer us a logical method to explain recent observations. For some background information on Electric Comet theory, you might want to read this paper: http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf Two recent observations lend strong support to Thornhill and Talbot's theories: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071001_comet_surprises.html <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The study, detailed in the Oct. 1 issue of Astrophysical Journal, also found the comet tail acted as a source of electrons for the solar wind . The solar wind consists of charged atoms that are missing most of their electrons, but Ulysses found that solar wind particles passing through the comet's atmosphere could regain some of those electrons. The particles exhibit a different charge when they do this, which SWICS can detect.<hr /></blockquote> One way for the comet's tail to act as a source of electrons for solar wind particles would be for the comet to act as a conductor of current, between the relatively positively charged surface of the sun, and the relatively negatively charged solar sheath. http://www.space.com/spacewatch/071025-comet-holmes.html <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Comet Holmes, which was discovered in November 1892 by Edwin Holmes, in London England, was no brighter than magnitude 17 in mid-Octoberâ€”that's about 25,000 times fainter than the faintest star that can normally be seen without any optical aid. In order to view an object this faint, one would need a moderately large telescope. But the comet's brightness has suddenly roc</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

tom_hobbes · Oct 26, 2007

Hmmm, I may be stupid, in fact, I certainly am, but didn't you just reach for the most unreasonable of all possible explanations for the given observations? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 26, 2007

No! What exactly would you suggest is the most "reasonable" solutions to these "mysteries"? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

tom_hobbes · Oct 26, 2007

A mystery is any situation the cause of which I do not yet know. Upon encountering such a situation, if I suddenly step outside the frame of reference of everything I think I know or that is known, to explain it, I might be one of two things, a visionary or a lunatic. And of course I'm setting you up for your next reply which is...? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 27, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />A mystery is any situation the cause of which I do not yet know.<hr /></blockquote> Sure, but then we have several workable theories by the likes of Hannes Alfven, Kristian Birkeland, Charles Bruce, Peratt, etc. Some of these theories can be put to the "test", and some of these theories provide useful models for helping us to understand the nature of our universe. EU theory and plasma cosmology theory (plasma physics) is a valid branch of the physical sciences. It is opening up doorways for us to begin to understand our universe and to begin to take the mystery out of the way it works. Sooner or later it won't be a mystery any longer. There are logical ways for us to proceed if we are to explain these sorts of phenomenon. To understand such phenomenon, we have to understand the nature of plasma, and the makeup of comets and their implications as it relates to plasma physics. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Upon encountering such a situation, if I suddenly step outside the frame of reference of everything I think I know or that is known, to explain it, I might be one of two things, a visionary or a lunatic.<hr /></blockquote> Well, fortunately I don't feel the need to "step outside" my personal frame of reference, because my frame of reference is plasma physics. Alfven was given a Nobel prize for MHD theory, and he was into plasma cosmology theory. Either he's a lunatic, or he's a visionary. I tend to think it was the latter, and so did his peers. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />And of course I'm setting you up for your next reply which is...?<hr /></blockquote> Which kind of guy was Hannes Alfven or Kristian Birkeland? Were they visionaries or lunatics, and how do you justify your answer? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

adrenalynn · Oct 27, 2007

I didn't see you address/adequately dismiss photo-disassociation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> .bipartisan (bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən) [Adj.] Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.IMPEACH OBAMA! </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 29, 2007

I simply don't see any evidence that photo-disassociation has anything at all to do with this phenomenon. It seems to me there are only a limited number of things that could cause this behavior (twice) from this same comet, and that isn't one of them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

adrenalynn · Oct 29, 2007

If a comet were to have a porous structure, then this is easily explained. If some pores or chambers were to crack and eventually melt-through with repeated heating and thawing, then you'd be exposing fresh ice to the sun. Sublimation and disassociation would then exhibit in the form of huge gas jets - exactly what we're observing. Of course, this is a guess, but it'll much more easily survive Occam's Razor than will reinventing the entire universe to explain it. We can observe this happen in smaller scale (and larger scale in the form of our atmosphere in some instances) any day of the week... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> .bipartisan (bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən) [Adj.] Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.IMPEACH OBAMA! </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 29, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If a comet were to have a porous structure,<hr /></blockquote> Well, let's start with the basics. What evidence do you have that they have a porous structure? The last few they've looked at up close while in orbit looked like hunks of iron and nickel. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />then this is easily explained. If s ome pores or chambers were to crack and eventually melt-through with repeated heating and thawing, then you'd be exposing fresh ice to the sun. Sublimation and disassociation would then exhibit in the form of huge gas jets - exactly what we're observing.<hr /></blockquote> There's one small problem with that concept. From the link above: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Why Comet Holmes has undergone such an explosive outburst is not understood. What is amazing is that it made its closest approach to the sun last May, but came no closer than 191 million miles (307 million kilometers) to the sun. The comet is now moving away from the sun and currently is quite far out from Earth at a distance of 151 million miles (243 million kilometers). Not exactly a recipe for the typical show-off comet.<hr /></blockquote> If you're rock had blown it's top in May, your idea might be a bit more believable. As it stands, you're talking about a frozen object that is getting colder not warmer. Suddenly it explodes and grows in intensity over a few hour period? How probable is that? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Of course, this is a guess, but it'll much more easily survive Occam's Razor than will reinventing the entire universe to explain it. <hr /></blockquote> Well, humans like you and me didn't invent the universe, it simply exists as it is, regardless of how we think it works. The existence of Birkeland currents on Earth demonstrates that <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

vogon13 · Oct 29, 2007

It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. For starters, there are only 2 kinds, positive and negative. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

adrenalynn · Oct 29, 2007

Well, let's start with the basics. What evidence do you have that they have a porous structure? The last few they've looked at up close while in orbit looked like hunks of iron and nickel. Yes, agreed, let's look at the basics: Asteroids, meteors, planetesimals are frequently metals. Comets are generally about 27% H2O Ice, 21% nonvolitile Organics. Less than 20% tends to be metals and rock. They're probably more ice crystals than solid ice. (As ice tends to do in a dusty environment). In fact, the mission to Comet Wild 2 showed that it's a loosely bound aggregate of ice, hydrocarbons, organics, olivine, and some nickle/iron sulfates. "Comets are a major source of the water and carbon on the moon," said S. Pete Worden, NASA Ames director" [...] ""Our studies of the comet dust show that the organics are very rich in oxygen and nitrogen," Sandford said. " [...] "Although some of the other organics captured by the Stardust spacecraft look somewhat similar to the fairly stable organics found in meteorites, Sandford noted that many of the organic compounds appear to be very volatile. One sample even showed an abundance of material containing alcohols. " [...] "The organics paper is one of seven in the journal Science reporting the findings of the preliminary examination team that made the initial study of the cometary samples." - http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news108.html That in itself provides the necessary evidence in defense of the theory I presented. Further, just because you heat ice, you don't get an instantaneous melting. In order to see the sublimation of the pits, you'd need freezing and thawing to create the cracks within the porous structure, deep enough to expose new ice. Really, I think you need <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> .bipartisan (bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən) [Adj.] Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.IMPEACH OBAMA! </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 29, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />For starters, there are only 2 kinds, positive and negative. <hr /></blockquote> Well, there are helium ions, and nickel ions, and iron ions, etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

yevaud · Oct 29, 2007

Monatomic or Polyatomic Ions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

vogon13 · Oct 29, 2007

OK, 10 kinds. {base 2} <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 29, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Asteroids, meteors, planetesimals are frequently metals.<hr /></blockquote> Yes, and so are comets: http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news113.html http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/happenings/20061010/ http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1896 Contrary to the "dirty snowball" theory, it seems that comets and asteroids contain much of the same materials, specifically materials that came from the sun. From that last article: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"In the coldest part of the solar system, we've found samples that have formed at extremely high temperatures," Brownlee said. "When these minerals formed, they were either red-hot or white-hot grains."<hr /></blockquote> In other words, they formed close to the sun. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Comets are generally about 27% H2O Ice, 21% nonvolitile Organics. Less than 20% tends to be metals and rock. They're probably more ice crystals than solid ice. (As ice tends to do in a dusty environment). In fact, the mission to Comet Wild 2 showed that it's a loosely bound aggregate of ice, hydrocarbons, organics, olivine, and some nickle/iron sulfates.<hr /></blockquote> They also found clays, silicates and typical elements found on asteroids. The implication here is that they formed *close to* the sun, not somewhere out in deep space. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"Comets are a major source of the water and carbon on the moon," said S. Pete Worden, NASA Ames director" [...] <hr /></blockquote> There isn't much known water on the moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

adrenalynn · Oct 29, 2007

So to summarize, your data is in disagreement with that stated by NASA Ames' director? Can we see the raw data of your study of the Stardust captures? Comets are generally about 27% H2O Ice, 21% nonvolitile Organics. Less than 20% tends to be metals and rock. They're probably more ice crystals than solid ice. (As ice tends to do in a dusty environment). In fact, the mission to Comet Wild 2 showed that it's a loosely bound aggregate of ice, hydrocarbons, organics, olivine, and some nickle/iron sulfates. They also found clays, silicates and typical elements found on asteroids. The implication here is that they formed *close to* the sun, not somewhere out in deep space. Which does nothing to further your argument that they're made of iron and nickle. Yes, they contain some small percentage of metals. A larger percentage of rock. Add 'em both together and you don't get more than 20%. Unless, of course, you can show us where your collected data differs from that of NASA. Otherwise, I'm inclined to go with the people who have the dust in their hot little hands. ----- Ice has the largest tendency to fracture not when it's thawing but when it's refreezing. Anyone can observe that in the comfort of their own home. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> .bipartisan (bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən) [Adj.] Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.IMPEACH OBAMA! </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 30, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />So to summarize, your data is in disagreement with that stated by NASA Ames' director?<hr /></blockquote> No, my *opinion* is in disagreement with his *opinion* about the makeup of comets. The data we're both looking at cannot tell us the *actual* composition of this comet or any comet. At best case, even were there percentages based on actual samples, it would only tell us the percentage of "sampled" elements. I doubt that this is the case however based on his statements. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Can we see the raw data of your study of the Stardust captures?<hr /></blockquote> What "raw data" are his percentages based on? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Comets are generally about 27% H2O Ice, 21% nonvolitile Organics. Less than 20% tends to be metals and rock.<hr /></blockquote> Note here that he said "comets" as though he is speaking in generic terms. You seem to be implying he got these percentages straight from the actual data. That's not the case as far as I am aware. If you have some evidence to substantiate your claim that his *opinion* (and percentages) are based on actual data from this comet, by all means show it to me. I'm a reasonable person. As far as I know however, his statement was not related to the actual percentages of materials collected in this single experiment. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />They're probably more ice crystals than solid ice. (As ice tends to do in a dusty environment). In fact, the mission to Comet Wild 2 showed that it's a loosely bound aggregate of ice, hydrocarbons, organics, olivine, and some nickle/iron sulfates. <hr /></blockquote> Notice that word "probably"? It implies *uncertainty*. If this statement were based on his direct measurements of elements found and collected in stardust capture data, it wo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

adrenalynn · Oct 30, 2007

"Probably" was my quote. Not his. Notice how his are attributed with quote marks, and mine aren't? His data is based on samples captured from a comet. I'm asking to see the data you have on samples captured from a comet. Let's not get off in the weeds here. Do you have comet samples or not? Before we go any further, let's try to answer that rather than redirecting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> .bipartisan (bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən) [Adj.] Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.IMPEACH OBAMA! </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 30, 2007

I'd like to point out that any assumptions based on a single comet sample would be incorrect. So far every comet we've examoned close up has been unique. Also comets have different percentages of ices and other materials. Just recall the difference between the tiny almost dust free Hyakutake, and the very dusty Hale-Bopp which we observed a year apart. Analysis of the elements in comet tails, while similar, have been different for every comet we've looked at. So NO generic statements can be made about comets. Another thing to consider is that there are three comet sources; the Kuiper Belt, the Oort Cloud, and recently, the asteroid belt itself. The comets from each of these sources are likely to be very different, and not homogenous even within each source region. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Oct 30, 2007

Note that after this article was written, the comet continued to increase in brightness, reaching nearly a million times it's previous photon output. There really aren't a lot of logical possibilities here as it relates to the sudden increase in brightness over several orders of magnitude. Either the comet slammed into something, or it became a conductor of electrons flowing between the sun and the solar sheath. There aren't a lot of other local options to explain this sudden increase in brightness. Without commenting on the above, could spectroscopy differentiate between the above hypothesis and the standard explanation ? Wouldn't the light from Holmes be different if it were a plasma effect rather than reflected sunlight ? Assuming I'm correct, make your predictions now and let's hope someone does the measurement (if it hasn't already been done). Then, at least in this case, the debate can be decided. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

robnissen · Oct 30, 2007

My belief is that EU is probably (but NOT definitely) a crackpot theory. Most of the EU advocates hurt their cause by make sweeping statements hinting at conspiraces and bad motives on the part of EU disbelievers. MichaelMozina is not one of those, however. He clearly sets out his arguments and points out interesting discrepencies in current theory. One thing that concerns me about the main stream advocates, such as yourself, is dogmatic statements of facts that simply are not proven. For example, your statement Comets are generally about 27% H2O Ice, 21% nonvolitile Organics. Less than 20% tends to be metals and rock, is very much an overstatement. Perhaps some comets have similar compositions, but IIRC Comet Tempel came nowhere near that composition. Indeed, the most striking (pun intended) aspect of the impact on Tempel, was the almost complete lack of the expected water vapor. I doubt that EU is the answer why Comet Holmes has brightened a million-fold, but mainstream science also has yet to put forth a persuasive theory.

michaelmozina · Oct 30, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />His data is based on samples captured from a comet.<hr /></blockquote> I believe that you have simply 'assumed' that the percentages that he mentioned in the article were directly related to him measuring the contents of Stardust samples as a whole. While that is possible that his percentages are based on the actual measurements from this specific comet, (and I will accept that if you can demonstrate it), that is not clear from his statements, nor does he state that in the article. I think you simply assumed that. His statements sound rather generic to me. I could be mistaken, but I'd like to see your data. The other key issue here was pointed out by MeteorWayne. We already know that there is a great deal of diversity in the makeup of the objects we see in space, and also in comets. It would be premature to assume that all comets are identical in percentages of various elements. All I am suggesting to you is that comets would appear to be not so different from other objects in the sky. In the Stardust data we find the same sorts of high temperature elements in comets that we find in asteroids and planets. As far as we know, they are all created in the same supernova events. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I'm asking to see the data you have on samples captured from a comet. Let's not get off in the weeds here. Do you have comet samples or not? Before we go any further, let's try to answer that rather than redirecting.<hr /></blockquote> I'm using exactly the same samples he's using, along with spectroscopic data from other comets. What they found in this comet was surprising to dirty snowball advocates. They found materials that require very high temperatures that are measured in the thousands of degrees (like we might find in a sun). They also found clays that only form in liquid water (like a planet). There is evidence to <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 30, 2007

Just curious Michael, what makes you think this comet has more iron and metals than most? On a related point, is anyone aware of any spectroscopic observations of this comet? I would assume you have, MM, in order to make that statement. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 30, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />My belief is that EU is probably (but NOT definitely) a crackpot theory. <hr /></blockquote> In my experience, that term "crackpot" is misused a lot by the mainstream advocates. Electricity is obviously not a "crackpot" concept. Alfven was also rewarded with a Nobel prize for his work on MHD theory. Hannes Alfven and Kristian Birkeland are pretty much the founders of EU theory/plasma cosmology theory. From my EU perspective, it is rather silly to be calling the winner of a Nobel prize a "crackpot". I find that word to be somewhat of a crutch, and more than a little unfair. I think the mainstream has relied too heavily upon ad hominems at times, rather than to put forth any convincing scientific arguments against EU theory. By the same token, I think that many EU proponents (including myself at times) are far too focused on the holes in current theory, and they are not focused enough on the merits of EU theory. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Most of the EU advocates hurt their cause by make sweeping statements hinting at conspiraces and bad motives on the part of EU disbelievers.<hr /></blockquote> I too have certainly been guilty of that behavior at times, particularly on more repressive forums. It's likely a result of the frustration one goes through during this process. I'm sure Alfven experienced many of these same frustrations. On this particular forum however, I have experienced a very "fair" and open minded approach from the moderators. There is clearly no "conspiracy" going on here. They seem to be very interested in promoting scientific dialog here and they have welcomed me. That has not been the case on every astronomy oriented website I've posted on however. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> MichaelMozina is not one of those, however. He clearly sets out his arguments and points out inter</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 30, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Just curious Michael, what makes you think this comet has more iron and metals than most?<hr /></blockquote> It is based on the observation that this particular comet seems to be creating a lot more induction current than most as it travels through the plasmas between the sun and the heliosphere. This is not the first time this particular comet has shows signs of brightening as it is leaving the sun. That suggests to me that this particular comet contains more heavy elements, and probably more iron than most. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />On a related point, is anyone aware of any spectroscopic observations of this comet? I would assume you have, MM, in order to make that statement.<hr /></blockquote> I have not actually seen a spectroscopic analysis of this comet. I have based my opinion about it's composition on it's EM behaviors as it exists the interior of the solar system. That million fold increase in brightness has a very specific scientific cause. IMO that "cause" is related to it's EM interactions with the solar wind, and the currents that flow through the solar wind. That is why we have seen this flare up behavior from this same comet in the past, and it is why I predict that we will observe that same brightening behavior in the future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

Electric Universe theory is bolstered by recent data.

michaelmozina

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

adrenalynn

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

adrenalynn

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

vogon13

Guest

adrenalynn

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

yevaud

Guest

vogon13

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

adrenalynn

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

adrenalynn

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

robnissen

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page