It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Io, The Electrified Moon

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 02:10 PM
You do realize that gravity is dependent upon mass don't you? You do realize that this is not Earth we are talking about don't you?

posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 02:12 PM
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Very interesting share

posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 06:08 PM
Well well well.

I just noticed yet another massive peculiarity about the volcanoes on Io.

Scientists have not directly observed any lava spewing into the air for any so-called “volcano” on Io.

If you’re looking for close-up pictures of lava getting sprayed a hundred kilometers into the air from a volcanic vent, you’re not going to find any. The only images you’ll find are colored in pictures of so-called lava fields. The so-called lava fields are assumptions based on chemical composition and thermal data.

I love the caption beneath this image, it reads, “the origin of Prometheus’ plume is a long-standing mystery: Where is the vent that is the source of all the gas and dust?” Indeed, where is it? I don’t see it. Keep in mind you are looking down the barrel of a supposedly erupting volcano that is spraying “lava” 100 km into the air.

What’s interesting about that picture is we can see so-called “blue hazes” emanating from the top left of the crater walls. This is precisely what we would expect to see with a discharging plasma focus. The discharge will tend to be concentrated along the crater walls as it excavates them. Notice the even and smooth crater floor, as well as the sharply scalloped crater walls. Both are hallmarks of electrical discharge machining. The discharge will carve out a long winding crater as it blasts its way across the surface. This phenomena explains how a “volcano” is capable of “wandering.”

edit on 7/18/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 02:10 PM
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Oh come on.

Did no one read my last comment?

That's the money shot!

posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 09:25 PM
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Nice thread! You presented a very good case. I wonder what this means for us on planet earth, or for the history and future of our solar system and the universe itself, assuming this is true. (Like I said you've presented a very good case, from my humble perspective. However I must keep an open mind, but I am definitely curious/interested enough to want to know more, especially as far as what the ramifications would be if this were true...)

posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:08 PM
This is so interesting! Thank you OP.

A couple of thoughts.

1. Electric arcing that hot could certainly liquify something, so one would actually expect that 'somewhere' there might be liquid (just as with actual volcanoes), except that it would likely either be incredibly thin or immediately hardened in this case I suppose. In any case, the 'results' to include it 'moving around' (so, we should see a larger area of results, right) ought to provide some evidence, not just during but after the fact.

2. There is a ridiculous amount of logical evidence for the plasma theory of the universe, regardless of the overwhelmingly entrenched alternatives. Expect to get beat up on if you dare propose anything that falls in that category. But carry on, time will tell eventually on these things I'm sure.

3. Are there other examples of moons orbiting within (or previously within) the magnetosphere of a planet which would in theory be expected to have, at least potentially, some similar effects?

4. I am wondering, for planetary bodies where this happens to be the case, what impact that could have on the terrestrial development -- as you mentioned. Are there theories by those with interests in these things, of how that might change our interpretation geologically?

5. I would really like it if just once in history, our species could look at something of which we actually know little to nothing about and say, "How interesting, I wonder what it is? Let's refrain from making an immediate conclusion and then setting out to find evidence to prop up our theories while kicking competing theories in the shins. Let's instead just explore every element of it we can, and openly and honestly, and see what beautiful differences may come to light aside from the things we already know!"

posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 12:50 AM
a reply to: RedCairo

Watch the video at the end of the OP.

It will answer your questions.

posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 02:39 PM
If anyone is interested in a linkable article, I've put it up on my website.

The web article contains edits and additional information that support the volcanoes being electrical discharges.

posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 03:40 PM
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

So, Io has an atmosphere to ionize and breakdown so that your proposed electrical discharges would be visible?

Cause without that atmosphere your electric discharge isn't gonna look like much...

posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 05:40 PM
a reply to: framedragged

Don't need an atmosphere to produce visible effects when the discharge is into silicates. The discharge will rip apart minerals on the ground, ionize them, and carry them aloft into space.

Io does have an atmosphere, but as with everything else on Io, it is not consistent with volcanism.

NASA estimates say less than 40% of SO observed in the atmosphere can be sustained by volcanism, and less the 20% of the observed SO2 can be sustained by volcanism.

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 02:39 AM
Is there a reason that you left out the most probable explanation for the missing SO2 stated in this paper?

Volcanism can sustain < 40 % of the atmosphere
SO2 photolysis is the best candidate for main SO source

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 02:53 AM
a reply to: moebius


That's just another one of their crappy assumptions.

They can assume all they want, they have no proof, no evidence, no nothing.

They assume lava is shooting out of vents which they can't see.

They assume volcanoes are the cause of Io's footprint on Jupiter, when other moons without volcanoes do the same.

Their assumptions are garbage.

The most probable cause of the atmospheric Sulfur, Sodium, and other observed ions, is a plasma discharge. Of course, they don't include that in their list of possible causes because they don't believe electricity can flow through space plasma as it does here on Earth. The whole point of my article is to point out that assumption is a load of nonsense.

They only assume its volcanoes because that's all they got to work with.

edit on 7/21/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 03:48 AM

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Why is the plume glowing blue?

Oops sorry that's my fault. I was there having lunch with Jupiter and I got a little flatulent, and, well, I'm blue. I'm really embarrased so let's not make a big deal about it.

why do people insist on posting garbage like this? What did your post add to this thread? Nothing. If you dont have anything to add just keep quiet.

Well OP I dont know much, and im no scientist, but you make a darn good argument. Science has become stagnated with old, outdated theories that the hierarchy refuses to admit are wrong because it would shatter all of their theories. We know LESS then .000000000000000000000001% of the full knowledge of the universe. Just read my signature. S&F. Awesome post.

P.S.: Mods should start removing posts like the one I responded too.

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 09:15 AM
Interesting. If you'd want to know for sure, I think observing the phenomena with a UV and/or X-ray camera would be a good idea. If it's a plasma discharge, it should give off a pretty strong signature in those parts of the spectrum. (As where regular volcanism is more likely to just be on the IR end.)

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 12:04 PM
I watched the video on the OP. Due to schedule and it talking about Mars I hadn't initially. That was really fascinating, albeit it kept putting me to sleep probably with eye strain... probably need reading glasses. I think they more than made their point in the video.

The hilarious thing is that nobody cares about the electric/plasma theory of astronomy being the case aside from people previously educated to believe something different. I mean if you told the average person that canyons and cliffs, mountains and a variety of 'geological formations' were made by plasma effects instead of some other cause I expect they'd say, "Uh, ok." Why would it bother anybody -- it takes indoctrination and a vested interest in "what one knows being RIGHT" to sponsor all the up-in-arms stuff about that theory.

It didn't mention what other planets or moon might have similar symptoms at least that I recall.

I am wondering about the impossibly deep-vast canyons on Ganymede.

And on whether such a thing could occur again on Mars.

I'm not sure what the criteria are.

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 01:07 PM
a reply to: RedCairo

If you dig deep enough you start running into religious territory.

The PC version of historical events is so far removed from the story everyone has been told about the creation and history of the Earth that it ends up offending religious sects. I include "mainstream science" as it's own flavor of religion in that pool.

Basically any time you start presenting evidence that a person's religious beliefs are wrong, be they faith based scientific beliefs of beliefs predicated on historical religious teachings, you're going to get a nasty reaction from a good chunk of those population groups.

posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 01:08 AM
I like this theory, it sounds better than earth-centric volcanism. And its just a theory. Makes me wonder if Mars ever did have an atmosphere, and folks long ago noticed rocks coming from Mars, that perhaps the planet was hit by a CME or something that would cause electric-plasma storms on a monumental scale and destroy any atmosphere at the same time.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in