Originally posted by tututkamen

James Mc Canney (jmccanneyscience), a researcher of Celestial Mechanics and Plasma Physics, was Monday night's guest. Comets are not dirty snowballs but "electrical vacuum cleaners that are drawing in material, and the big ones can retain material with their gravitational field and become bigger and bigger," McCanney said, adding that he thinks that most of the planets in our solar system started off as comets.

Ah yes. McCanney with his faked degrees. I wouldn't count on him as a reliable source.

"Comet" (in contrast to what so many of these self-proclaimed "experts" believe) is not an alternate term for "Something bigger than a peanut that goes rocketing through the solar system."

That's like saying "A cat is not a quadrupedal vertebrate that meows and purrs -- instead it is an enormous structure with four legs, one on each corner, made out of beef steaks."

A comet IS a large ball of gas and ice. That's the definition. Some do have rocky cores, but when the gases melt away and leave only rock, we have an asteroid.

So Planet X is not a comet.

And comets are not "vacuum cleaners" of some sort. In fact, they grow smaller as they pass us ... and this can be proved by simple measurement. By *extremely* simple measurements.

McCanney doesn't know this (or that you can easily calculate and confirm the mass loss) with simple calculations because he isn't a scientist.

He's a fraud.

Heck, you'd have more luck getting good science out of Miss Cleo.

...you know, we saw this same scenario (with Jeremiahs Of Doom) earlier this month, and that led to the "I told you so" thread.

The Earth isn't splitting apart.
Planet X is made up by someone who has a poor grasp on reality and scholarship.
The frequency and strength of earthquakes is actually a little less this year than the average.
The NWO isn't going to take over.

Really.

James Mc Canney (jmccanneyscience), a researcher of Celestial Mechanics and Plasma Physics, was Monday night's guest. Comets are not dirty snowballs but "electrical vacuum cleaners that are drawing in material, and the big ones can retain material with their gravitational field and become bigger and bigger," McCanney said, adding that he thinks that most of the planets in our solar system started off as comets. Posted by tutankamen

Please post links to evidence supporting this. As I stated, and maintain, there is no current scientific evidence to support this theory. It is unlikely that orbital bodies contain a significant electromagnetic field (the geomag field of earth is generated internally through inductive interaction between the core and inner mantel), and certainly not strong enough to pick up significant amounts of material in essentially hard vacuum.

Also, this theory would only work if all particles the body passed was of the opposite charge of the body. But, as it did pick up oppositely charged particles, it would eventually cancel its own charge as it accumulated mass of the opposite charge.

As far as retaining mass due to a gravitational field... well, this only becomes possible when you get to an object of about the size of the moon or so.... far larger than your average comet.

In fact, McCanney believes the planet Venus is just a few thousand years old, and after it escaped Jupiter's orbit, it tore into the inner solar system, destroying Mars' atmosphere as it passed by on its way to its current position. "My estimate is there are approximately 1,000 objects that are planetary size out there," but when they come through our solar system "they will always look like comets," he said. McCanney suspects there could be at least 10-12 objects that are the size of Jupiter or Saturn and that five of them have come through in the last 10,000 years. The ancients called them the "lawless ones," he said.

Really?

We know for fact that the earth is around 4.65 billion years old, through radiometric dating (there is a possibility it could be significantly older). We have NO evidence that any of the major planets are significantly older or younger than this. Indeed, it would difficult to explain why a body that is significantly younger than the rest of the solar system exists in a stable orbit, well within the plane of the ecliptic, without having seriously disturbed other neigboring planets. (The only suspected orbital capture in our solar system is Pluto, which is likely a Kupier object, and its orbit is considerably more eccentric than the rest of the solar system)

As far as the idea of Venus making a close pass to Mars and ripping its atmosphere off... well, that is interesting, I will at least say that.

One of the best theories going on Mars is that around 1 billion years ago, it has approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of earth normal atmospheric pressure (it is currently 1/100 earth normal). Around 1 billion years in the past, it may have suffered an asteroid impact of a very sizeable "planet killer" at an oblique angle. The impact shock wave could have "blown" a large percentage of the atmosphere off the planet, and it may also explain the presence of Phobos and Deimos in orbit, as either large chunks of matel material blown into orbit in the impact, or perhaps pieces of the original impactor skipping off of mars surface and back into orbit.

Do Phobos and Deimos have any similarities with Venus, compositionally & structurally?

We honestly dont know, as we have yet to get a probe onto Phobos and Deimos yet, and have only gotten limited information from Venus as yet.

I have not researched this particular topic, so not absolutely sure. However, I do believe that both Phobos and Deimos and Venus are going to be largely composed of some variation of aluminosilicate minerals, which is what the vast majority of all planets are going to be composed of (it is the most common of minerals/rocks on earth as well).

Structurally, we do know that Venus has undergone extreme seismic/tectonic activity, which is not surprising due to its closer relative position to the sun, which would amplify any tidal effects in the core of the planet.

The structure of Phobos and Deimos is unknown for the most part, apart from what has been photographed (would have better information if Phobos 2 had survived orbital insertion and dropped it "hopper" probe). The accepted theory on Phobos and Deimos is orbital capture of asteroids, likely from the asteriod belt. This would still allow the asteroid impact/ricochet theory though.

Originally posted by MKULTRA

Do Phobos and Deimos have any similarities with Venus, compositionally & structurally?

Other than they're made of silica type rocks? No.

thank you so much for the enlightenment, it humbles me to be surrounded by such all knowing genius,
please allow me one more silly question.
why is it when you pass over a rug [space] and you come across a door knob [relatively static object in space] does your body suck up an elictrical charge [just like a vaccum cleaner]?
and i always thought there were electrons in rotation around mass
please explain my ignorance to me

Originally posted by tututkamen
thank you so much for the enlightenment, it humbles me to be surrounded by such all knowing genius,
please allow me one more silly question.
why is it when you pass over a rug [space] and you come across a door knob [relatively static object in space] does your body suck up an elictrical charge [just like a vaccum cleaner]?
and i always thought there were electrons in rotation around mass
please explain my ignorance to me

you pick up electrons in a physical interaction between yourself and the rug (the short answer anyway).

The problem with your theory is that these orbital bodies are travelling in a vacuum which by deffinition is an abscence of EVERYTHING, including electrical charge.

Now, I will grant you that the theory of Zero Point Energy does in fact hypothesize the presence of electrical charge in a vacuum, however this has yet to be experimentally proven.

Some of the more obvious problems with this theory is that there is no explaination for the origin of such a massive attractive electrical charge. The earth has an electrical field, a very very minute one, and it is internally generated through an inductive reaction at the core with the inner mantel, similar to how a generator works.

For the earth to have an electric field strong enough to do what you suggest, it would have to be at least an order of magnitude (or more) stronger than what it is. This would be so strong as to prevent our normal electrical technology from operating as it does on the surface, and could possibly be so great as to prevent our normal bioelectrical systems from operating normally (IE, it would cause an uninhabitable environment).

There are a couple of cases that mimic the effect you suggest: Jupiter and Saturn, both of which have significantly more powerful electrical fields than Earth, and in fact massive electrical discharges have been observed between the pricipal planets and thier moons. The power plant for these electrical fields comes from the enormous mass of the principal planet and the huge tidal forces exerted with the multiple moons in orbit of each one. However, even in these cases, there is no observations of mass "being swept up by an electrical vacuum cleaner". Indeed, any orbital captures that occur in these systems are due to the massive gravitational fields rather than any electrical field.

I would point out that both Pioneer probes made successful close fly bys with no problem, and Gallileo probe was 100% successful in its mission profile, despite entering close orbit.

For a small (even moon sized) object, which would still be too small to internally generate an electrical field, to hold such a field it would have to be previously "charged" to an extreme limit, and in order to hold such a charge, it would have to be 100% solid ferrous/magnetic material (and we know most oribtal bodies are NOT 100% ferrous). Keep in mind, each time such an object would "collect" mass (and only mass of an opposite charge, as it would repel any mass of the same charge) its initial electrical charge would constantly be decreasing in direct relation to the amount of oppositely charged mass it collects.

That also brings up the point: How would such an object obtain such an extreme charge in the first place?

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
Isn't that simply the moon?

I do not believe so, as the moons apparent diameter is the same as the suns. Its hard to tell though. However, I am going with the lense flare theory...

It is now june third, can we please put this planet x crap behind us!!!

hi di,

interesting thing with weather. i wondered some days ago if i should write to you. now i do. i stay up late in the night at this time. there is light in the skies in germany till 10:15 pm (mesz = gmt + 1). some days ago i went outside at 4:15 am (mesz) to walk my dog. the sun raised at 4:30 am! and the longest day of the year is still to come. to me it seems that we have changed sunrise, sunset conditions.

greetings from germany

peer

well it interesting up to the point you read it.

*turns on silly euro accent*

hello,

my name is late night sleeper and early riser. I live in england (not to far from Germany). And the sun rises when it should and sets when it should. The evenings get longer as the equinox gets closer and surprisningly the dark and lightness are just about what you`d expect. Its June and really no surprise. But when I look out the window I see this large Planet in the sky. It all silvery and pitted with craters. I am most worried the earth will crash into it soon.

Anyway if I see Santa Claus will let you know.

Basically pah, I don`t wanna destroy your illusions about this, but if the guys email was correct I`m sure us quaint little fellows over here in blighty would have noticed. But since everything seems to be fine I`ll just have to defer to the germans (they do know best).

To put this into perspective: I am from Germany too and it's all as it should be. At 20:20 GMT it gets completely dark and the morning twilight zone begins at 02:20 GMT when it starts to get brighter again. So all earth rotation setting are running nominally :-)

Enkin

Tut,

If I get your meaning about the material in open space, hydrogen, which is about all there is out there, I have in fact looked into that in the past.

As a matter of fact, a lot of thought went into what you suggest as a method of interstellar propulsion IE the Bussard Ramscoop (I googled to find some *real* information on this subject, but I only got Star Trek related material, and gave up after the first 5 pages of searches)

In this theory, space is filled with loose hydrogen in a vacuum (which it is). A spacecraft releases a huge electromagnetic field and draws this hydrogen in to use as fuel in a fusion engine (sounds a lot like the theory you mention here).

Problems found with this model:

Hydrogen in interstellar space is on average about 1 molecule per 3-4 cubic meters of volume (and remember how small a hydrogen molecule is!)

Hydrogen has no electrical charge, therefore an electromagnetic field would have no effect on it (and niether would an electrically charged comet).

The fact of the matter is that there are hundreds of thousands of observed, known objects travelling at high speed through space, and none of them behave as described in this theory.

If these are real then I guess Nancy and her Zetans were right after all....