Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bad Astronomy Vs Good Science. Debunking Phil Plait

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
By all means do it, lets hear it, it's time the gloves come off on this issue.

When you can show me how electric universe theory accounts for the stardust mission result without invoking a conspiracy then I'll be receptive. That's all I'll say so as not to derail things.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ngchunter]




posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBandit795
 


I see now reason why BAUT and Plait should not be discussed here, on the basis of scientific argument. Now Plait has a video on black holes. He really does not know what he is talking about. Here are some reasons why:

1) On the one hand it is claimed by the astrophysical scientists that black holes have an escape velocity >= c (speed of light in vacuo). On the other hand they also claim that nothing, including light, can even leave a black hole. If the escape velocity of a black hole is c, then light can escape and all observers could see it; and massive bodies could leave it, but not escape. If the escape velocity is > c then light and massive bodies could both leave the black hole, but not escape, and so there is always a class of observers that could see it. The claims of the astrophysical scientists are contradictory.
2) All black hole ‘solutions’ relate to a universe that contains only one mass. But escape velocity involves two masses by definition – one mass escapes from another mass. Furthermore, the black holers use Newton’s expression for the escape velocity and ‘Schwarzschild’ radius of their black hole. But one cannot use a Newtonian two-body relation in what is alleged to be a non-Newtonian one-body configuration, and one cannot use a Euclidean geometry (Newton’s) to determine radii in a non-Euclidean geometry. The black holers have erroneously blended Newtonian theory into Einstein’s non-Newtonian theory, and therefore their arguments are nonsense.
3) The black hole is alleged to contain an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Now Special Relativity and General Relativity must be consistent, and according to Einstein and his followers, the laws of Special Relativity must hold in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field, and these regions can be anywhere in his gravitational field. But Special Relativity forbids infinite density because infinite density implies that material bodies can acquire the speed of light in vacuum (which would require an input of infinite energy), which is impossible according to SR. So for GR to be consistent with SR, GR must also forbid infinite density, and therefore the Theory of Relativity forbids the infinitely dense point-mass singularity of the alleged black hole and so forbids black holes.
4) According to black hole theory it takes an infinite amount of time for an observer to confirm the presence of an event horizon. But nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time to make the observation. And so black holes can never be confirmed (making them metaphysics, not physics).



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBandit795
 


5) Since all black hole ‘solutions’ relate to a universe that contains only ONE mass, the notion of black hole interactions is nonsense. By way of example; a ‘Schwarzschild’ black hole is alleged from a solution for Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that by construction contains NO MATTER, but which is alleged by the astrophysical scientists to nevertheless contain one mass (causing the alleged gravitational field). Since the Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity, one cannot therefore arbitrarily insert into the spacetime of a ‘Schwarzschild’ black hole another ‘Schwarzschild’ black hole (independently from Ric = 0) so that the two black holes mutually persist in and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by construction contains no matter! Furthermore, there are NO KNOWN SOLUTIONS to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for such configurations of matter. Upon what solution to Einstein’s field equations do the black holers rely for black holes in multitudes or for a single black hole interacting with other matter generally? The simple answer is, none! They have no such solution. Once again they merely invoke Newton’s theory and blend it into Einstein’s non-Newtonian theory in order to justify the notion of black hole interactions and multiple bodies. Their arguments are complete and utter nonsense.
6) The black hole was originally conjured from “Schwarzschild’s solution”. However, ‘Schwarzschild’s solution’ is NOT even Schwarzschild’s solution, and Schwarzschild’s actual solution FORBIDS black holes. These facts are easily confirmed by Schwarzschild’s original paper, here: www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/schwarzschild.pdf
7) Non-technical discussion of the foregoing, in more detail, is here:

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/article-1-1.pdf



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by S.J.Crothers
 


What I said has nothing to do with scientific argument, but merely with avoiding conflict between two discussion boards. (Board wars).



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
When you can show me how electric universe theory accounts for the stardust mission result without invoking a conspiracy then I'll be receptive. That's all I'll say so as not to derail things.


Really? the stardust mission was nothing but the unexpected for the standard theory however it was not unexpected from the electric universe theorists, it actually conforms to the expectations of the electric comet model.

www.thunderbolts.info...

Stardust shatters comet theory

Done and done.

What conspiracy? is this another strawman? Plasma cosmology is built on verifiable physics, nothing, absolutely nothing involves the conjuring of mythical forces to make sense of observations. All of the Physics involved are well known and tested. The claim of pseudo science is unfounded.
The Big Bang however is full of psuedo concepts unproven, untested, yet blindly followed by the faithful.

Oh, and what were those other models again?

And thanks for chiming in Stephen always good to hear from someone in the field instead of in the armchair like myself.

If you want to talk relativity he's your man


[edit on 28-5-2009 by squiz]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


If EU theory was right then stardust shouldn't have recovered any minerals at all (in fact, the probe should have been fried). Not surprisingly, some will try to twist EU to fit ANY result, but the fact of the matter is that if EU's original ideas of comets was correct, they shouldn't have recovered dust or bits of comet from the tail. The fact of the matter is that just as many electrons flow from the sun as do protons, a fact that EU proponents consistently fail to mention. The sun is NOT electrically powered. Stardust proved that once and for all by showing that cometary tails are composed of dust, not plasma.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

If this experiment goes through as expected, it's results would lean heavily towards the standard model.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


I agree with your opinion on the level of hypocrisy that seems to be everywhere. Reflecting back I became aware of how much time I spent contemplating this very issue asking questions like, how have we come to be at this point? I fail to see the value in knowing how it happened, why or who is to blame.

I believe for the most part cosmology has backed itself into a corner and pushing the issue further will only make things worse. Rather than waste any more time proving what is wrong focus needs to be on the understanding of what is. I think a wrong turn was taken pertaining to the theory of a Luminiferous Aether and instead of throwing out Newton's laws maybe a simple change in direction would do.

Several years ago I came across the word 'Quintessence' which was then defined as the fifth element "according to medieval science", as it was explained, and seemed to be rejected in favor of an absolute void. Later the terms 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' came about and now it seems we are coming full circle with a new definition for Quintessence.


When it doubt, go back to the basics. That's just what cosmologists have done to explain why our universe seems to be accelerating. The new buzz word in cosmology these days is 'quintessence', borrowed from the ancient Greeks who used the term to describe a mysterious 'fifth element'...
Source-Astronomy today.

The articles that I found on this subject are rather poor containing errors, false claims and self contractions. I posted this one for lack of a better source to make the point that there is hope. The connection has not been made between an aether and dark matter but I think this is a step in the right direction.

It is of my opinion that proof for an Aether energy can be found in Newton's Law of inertia. The resistance to acceleration, or inertia, is due to an unseen force and momentum, working in a similar way, contains the energy from a force in a mass by resisting a negative acceleration. Gravitational force is an acceleration and is effected in much the same way.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
If EU theory was right then stardust shouldn't have recovered any minerals at all (in fact, the probe should have been fried). Not surprisingly, some will try to twist EU to fit ANY result, but the fact of the matter is that if EU's original ideas of comets was correct, they shouldn't have recovered dust or bits of comet from the tail.


I don't know where you get your information but that is completely wrong.
The dust is a central part of the theory. Did you read the links, the statements and the results?

Electric discharges on the surface excavate material in a form of cathode spluttering this explains the fine powdering, it also explains why the elements appear to be formed under intense heat, it also explains the craters and poc marked surfaces.
Just plain wrong dude.

Perhaps you can supply a source for those assumptions?

None of the results, absolutely none from the Stardust mission was expected from standard theory. I really don't know why you picked that. It's a fine example of evidence for the electric comet model. Who's twisting what now? Your perception of the model is completely off, and I don't know where or how you came up with those points. They are 100% WRONG. And 100% baffling.



The fact of the matter is that just as many electrons flow from the sun as do protons, a fact that EU proponents consistently fail to mention.


This old one again.
Again not true and another strawman. Although it is common for pseudo skeptics to claim this because they wrongly base it on the incorrect model of simple electrostatics instead of the appropriate low pressure gas discharge model.


The sun is NOT electrically powered. Stardust proved that once and for all by showing that cometary tails are composed of dust, not plasma.


Riiiight..... please explain how dust, which is expected by the way falsifies the electric sun hypothesis.
The Sun is not internally nuclear powered, the model has failed almost every observation and a few known laws of physics. It cannot explain even the simplest of things such as the corona or solar wind. In the electric model these things are expected.

How about this little gem.


Onboard the ACE satellite is the Solar Wind Electron Proton Alpha Monitor (SWEPAM) which is designed for direct scrutiny of coronal mass ejections (CME), interplanetary shockwaves and the detailed solar wind structure. Using advanced three-dimensional interpretive instrumentation, SWEPAM will coordinate its observations with the Ulysses probe, currently in polar orbit about the Sun at approximately 673,191,000 kilometers distance.One of the more unusual discoveries by the ACE/SWEPAM mission is an electron depletion in the solar wind due to “backstreaming electrons” flowing into the Sun from the surrounding space. These electrons are not in sync with the newest theories of the Sun’s activity, since the conveyance of electric charge is not considered apropos by astrophysicists. Consequently, they are left with a mystery when electrical activity presents itself in ways that they do not expect.


www.thunderbolts.info...

Those naughty electrons, they're going the wrong way.


Back to comets-

Now, explain why next to no water (0.5%) was found on Tempel and absolutely none of the other comet missions?

Explain why solar flares are associated with comets close calls with the sun?

Explain why comets have craters and look EXACTLY like asteroids?

Explain why comets emit X-rays and UV light?

Explain how Holmes maintained a coma larger than the sun by way of gravity? Ioniosed dust BTW. DUSTY PLASMA

Why are the plumes in the range of 1400 degrees?

Why are the jets discharged at supersonic speeds and maintain structure for hundreds of thousands of miles?

Explain why deep impact produced such a surprisingly large flash?
Explain why there was a pre flash before impact?
Why was there no water?
Why was the dust so fine?
Why was it ionized? DUSTY PLASMA.
Why did the comas spectrum change?
Why where there jets on the unlit side of the comet?

Explain how EU theorist Wall Thornhill predicted many of these in advance?

Why are even NASA reconsidering standard comet theory?

Because standard comet theory is a complete and absolute failure, and every observation, I'll say it again EVERY OBSERVATION is in support of the electric model. And all the questions above are easily answered. And many PREDICTED I must emphasize.

Here, get an education so you know what your arguing about instead of making stuff up. This also discuss stardust mission, so you can see for yourself. It also highlights the many successful predictions by Wall Thornhill made in advance of deep impact. As well as some revealing reports from NASA's own scientist. I don't hate them btw, in fact they are slowly starting to come around. There are many free thinking scientists who are getting on board. It's the dogma I hate. It's the dogma that is keeping the human race back from realizing the true nature of the cosmos.

Start at part 3 for the EU stuff. Although I doubt you'll bother.
www.youtube.com...

P.S I'm still waiting for those so called other cosmological models. And that easy debunking! So far you've only shown failure to get the simplest concepts right.


[edit on 28-5-2009 by squiz]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


I agree Devino, indeed we took a wrong turn when we replaced abstract mathematics with real science of experiment and observation. Now they've run amok with it and created some bizaare fantasy based on speculation and thought experiment.

I'm an ether guy myself, what a replacement we got, "spacetime"
How does matter warp empty space anyway? and Einsteins theory of gravity is a circular loop that uses gravity to explain gravity. To his credit he was well aware of the incompleteness of his theories, and he should be praised for the photo electric effect, which he was. But the relativists grabbed his theories and went crazy. Likewise he also grabbed others theories and ran with them.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider
news.bbc.co.uk...

If this experiment goes through as expected, it's results would lean heavily towards the standard model.


Not really, nuclear fusion is taking place at the sun not in the sun according to the electric model.
Just like in the experiment the sun is powered from an outside source.
It doesn't demonstrate anything in support of the standard theory.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
I don't know where you get your information but that is completely wrong.
The dust is a central part of the theory. Did you read the links, the statements and the results?

It's easy to change horses after someone actually puts the "plasma tail" theory to the test. I'm not impressed at all.


it also explains the craters and poc marked surfaces.

Oh right, because regular craters are nothing like that...



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
It's easy to change horses after someone actually puts the "plasma tail" theory to the test. I'm not impressed at all.


I've no idea what that means. You've only provided false statements and not a single answer to any of my questions. Please back up your assumptions. Once again Stardust was confirmation for the electric model, the statements made on the predictions page were documented before the data. THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WAS EXPECTED BY THE STANDARD MODEL, this has been admitted many times. Prove that it wasn't.

Are you saying comets do not have a plasma tail? you must be joking, where's your sources your evidence? Your comment regarding EU expectations of the dust is completely false and laughable since you can look at any description from EU and see the exact opposite. PROVE THAT IT'S NOT.

The coma is plasma the ionized tail is plasma the dust tail is from discharges on the surface machining material from the comet. Can't put it any simpler than that I'm sorry.

Here some more on the EU perspective of the Stardust Mission.
Stardust Shatters Comet Theory
Stardust Shatter Comet Theory 2
Stardust Shatters Comet Theory 3

Here's a little more demonstrating the predictive power of the electric comet model.
www.thunderbolts.info...
NOTE : This article was posted less than 24 hrs before Deep Impact!
Explain that! but of course you cannot.




it also explains the craters and poc marked surfaces.


Oh right, because regular craters are nothing like that...


Actually craters are also the result of discharge machining, shall we talk craters? And why and how should comets even have craters if they are dirty snowballs?


The facts are apt to be more stubborn than the theoreticians: Deep Impact kicked up ten times more dust than expected and stimulated the comet's activity a magnitude less than expected. The dust was not a conglomeration of sizes as expected but was consistently powder-fine. The nucleus of the comet was covered with sharply delineated features, two of which were circular enough to be called impact craters. This was not expected for a dirty snowball or a snowy dirtball or even a powdery fluffball.

The craters, of course, weren’t actually called impact craters. They must have been caused by subsurface explosions, because they had flat floors and terraced walls, despite the myriad of other craters on rocky planets and moons with flat floors and terraced walls that are called impact craters. All the other circular depressions with flat floors and terraced walls weren’t craters because they had “unusual shapes”.


www.thunderbolts.info...

Note that last line "All the other circular depressions with flat floors and terraced walls weren’t craters because they had “unusual shapes”.
So you sarcastic comment is actually true.

The electric scaring has also been replicated in the lab, remember those things called experiments?

You make false statements and strawman after strawman, with no references at all. You've demonstrated that you are not familiar with the theories that you described as easily debunkable.
You've avoided my questions, not answering a single one. You attack the hypothesis based on your own extremely limited and outright wrong perceptions without providing any alternatives. Do you fear putting your alternatives forward?

Epic fail. It's me who's not impressed, I was hoping for a real debate.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by squiz]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Yeah I've gotten the boot from the BAUT forums myself.

If you start posting published peer reviewed papers by the IEEE or astronomical journals that discuss EU theory, its the boot for you! AdvancedPhysics told me I could not post any articles from the IEEE because plasma physics journals are not astronomical journals hahah! I'm serious, that was their excuse. Total insanity.

They make it impossible to have a civil discussion on the topic or talk about anything even remotely related to it no matter how many published papers you have backing your claims.

The same is true of physics.org and advancedphysics.org. Discussion of EU theory is verboten. Opening a topic, no matter how many published peer reviewed articles you have, on the subject will lead rapidly to a ban.

You can be completely civil, doesn't matter. They first attack the author, then the poster, then they always dredge up religion and mix it all together. Then they lock the post and ban the poster, even if the poster did not say anything remotely insulting.

I was banned from physics.org for simply posting a paper on EU theory (which was peer reviewed in a major plasma physics journal). I'm not joking. Total scientific supression.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
2nd reminder...

We do not allow discussion of the actions of the staff of other forums.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Thanks Mnemeth1. Excellent videos BTW, thanks very much.

There we have it, a first hand account.
The apologists here should stop pretending that science is so pure.
I regularly read posts here that say science is in no way like religion. That when new evidence presents itself, science moves forward and evolves, theories are refined or discarded, bla bla bla. Like it's a perfect world and all scientist are of a selfless nature working for the benefit of advancement.

When the reality is exactly the opposite. It's very much like religion when it comes to theory. Especially in regards to Big Bang cosmology. Which ironically was heralded by a priest! An attempt to reconcile science with some sort of divine creation event. Ego, greed, fear, jealousy etc.. all these human things are at play as well in the scientific institutions.

This is a psychological problem more than scientific I think. Because no amount of evidence can do for some.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WAS EXPECTED BY THE STANDARD MODEL,

And you say I'm the one who's making false statements...


Are you saying comets do not have a plasma tail?

When EU first started proposing the plasma tail instead of a dust tail hypothesis, there was no reason to believe it should contain dust as the whole point was to dispute the reason for the appearance of the tail being plasma, not reflected gas and dust. To EU'ers, there was no dust tail, just plasma. The truth is there is a dust AND an ion tail, but this is not what EU'ers originally predicted. The backtracking in recent years is hilarious to watch though. The fact of the matter is that spectroscopic analysis PROVES that cometary dust tails are just that; dust and water.


Actually craters are also the result of discharge machining, shall we talk craters? And why and how should comets even have craters if they are dirty snowballs?

Comets hit debris in space just the way asteroids do. There's no reason to think they wouldn't be cratered according to the standard model. If the craters are the result of discharges, where's all the heat? Comets are very cold things as proven by spectroscopic analysis:
adsabs.harvard.edu...
So much for that "electric comet" - if that's the reason high temperature minerals were detected, we should still be seeing high temperatures. We don't.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
When EU first started proposing the plasma tail instead of a dust tail hypothesis, there was no reason to believe it should contain dust as the whole point was to dispute the reason for the appearance of the tail being plasma, not reflected gas and dust. To EU'ers, there was no dust tail, just plasma. The truth is there is a dust AND an ion tail, but this is not what EU'ers originally predicted. The backtracking in recent years is hilarious to watch though. The fact of the matter is that spectroscopic analysis PROVES that cometary dust tails are just that; dust and water.


This was never the claim. Please give your source. What do you mean proposing a plasma tail, there IS a plasma tail. You know what ionized means? EU has never denied any of the dust which can also be ionized, or the water detected in the Tail.

You are pretending like you've been following the theory for years, when it's clearly evident that you know very little about it, I think you've gotten everything wrong so far as pertains to the specifics of the theory.

This is yet another strawman.


Comets hit debris in space just the way asteroids do. There's no reason to think they wouldn't be cratered according to the standard model.


There is when they are meant to be dirty snowballs, or powdery fluff balls, why do they appear to be the same as asteroids? because they are, what separates them is their orbits and interaction with the Suns electric field.


If the craters are the result of discharges, where's all the heat? Comets are very cold things as proven by spectroscopic analysis:
adsabs.harvard.edu...


Yes, and the jets measure in the thousands of degrees, hows that possible for dirty snowballs? where's that energy coming from? and plasma can be cold as well.


So much for that "electric comet" - if that's the reason high temperature minerals were detected, we should still be seeing high temperatures. We don't.


Sorry you,ve got that wrong, stardust found that the particles where originally formed in extreme temperatures, now trying to reconcile this with the standard theory, they assumed that they were formed close to the Sun, then magically they some how made it to the mythical Oort cloud, then somehow where catapulted into their eccentric orbits. Yeah I'm simplifying.


“How did materials formed by fire end up on the outermost reaches of the solar system, where temperatures are the coldest?” asked Associated Press writer Pam Easton.

"That's a big surprise. People thought comets would just be cold stuff that formed out ... where things are very cold," said NASA curator Michael Zolensky. "It was kind of a shock to not just find one but several of these, which implies they are pretty common in the comet".


I suppose I exaggerated with nothing was expected line, they did expect to get dust after all.


The Electric universe proposes that comets are debri resulting from large scale electric discharges in a earlier formation period of the solar system.

Space is cold of course, plasma can be cold, comets are cold except when they discharge in jets, measuring in the hundreds and thousands of degrees.

So how do they produce X-rays and UV light?

So much for your reasoning.
I challenge you to answer my previous questions about comets, based on the dirty snowball theory.
You've still failed to falsify anything, and still answered nothing. And failed to back up your claims.

EU does not deny physical evidence, EU denies the assumptions based on archaic theory that is based on further flimsy foundations. The precious held beliefs blind them.

Every aspect of cometary behavior conforms to the electric model.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by squiz]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Cometary Filaments



The Spitzer Space Telescope has returned remarkable images of Comet Holmes 17P, revealing structures that appear to confirm the electrical nature of comets.

An October 2007 Picture of the Day described the behavior of Holmes 17P and noted that many of the observed phenomena could be explained by an electrical theory of comets. Since these pages were first published, Electric Universe theorists have challenged the prevailing "dusty snowball" cometary theory. Comets becoming active at long distances from the Sun—sometimes as far out as Neptune's orbit—contradict the idea of a frozen ball of ice that only grows a tail or emits jets of gas when it gets close enough for the Sun's heat to sublimate its surface.
Hale-Bopp, a naked-eye comet that hung for weeks like an exclamation mark in the 1997 sky, was still active four years after it left the inner solar system. When it was farther from the Sun than the orbit of Uranus it was almost two million kilometers in diameter. It displayed a coma, a dust tail, and an ion tail more than a million kilometers long. Solar radiation will not melt ice at that distance, otherwise the moons of Saturn and Jupiter would be bone dry, so astronomers were unable to explain it.

In August of 2007, Comet Linear broke apart during its closest approach to the Sun. When the cloud of debris was analyzed, astronomers were surprised to find that it contained about 100 times more rocky material than ice.
The European Space Agency's Giotto probe met Halley's Comet on March 16, 1996. Among several discoveries, the comet was found to be covered with a black crust. Bright jets of ionized gas, or plasma, blasted out from its surface in three highly localized areas. Water was present in Halley's coma, but according to Horst Uwe Keller of the Max Planck Institut für Aeronomie: "We discovered that a comet is not really a 'dirty snowball' since dirt is dominant, not ice. Instead of being spherical like a warm snowball, a comet nucleus is elongated. The physical structure of a comet's interior is defined by its dust content rather than its ice content."

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 fragmented into several large pieces that plunged into Jupiter's atmosphere during the summer of 1994. It was hoped that the remnants of the fractured nucleus would expose fresh ices that would then sublimate. Spectrographic results from the Hubble Space Telescope showed no evidence for volatile gases in the debris clouds around the fragments. Auroral emissions were also detected in the atmosphere of Jupiter after the impact of fragment K, something that was unexpected and then attributed to "snowplow" effects as shock waves pushed the atmosphere aside.

Now, with the latest news release from Spitzer about Holmes 17P, scientists are again confounded by the workings of comets. "The data we got from Spitzer do not look like anything we typically see when looking at comets," said Bill Reach of NASA's Spitzer Science Center at Caltech.

What are called "streamers" have been found inside the shell of gas and dust that makes up the haze around the comet's nucleus. Spitzer team members have not yet determined why the twisted threads of material continue to point in the same direction. They remain in the same alignment as they had since their initial formation. Despite several months of travel, they have not rotated to stay aligned with the Sun. As has been discussed in previous Picture of the Day articles, the braided filaments are the sign of helical Birkeland currents.

Outbursts like those on Holmes 17P are how Electric Universe theorists expect comet tails to be produced. Because electric discharges are capable of removing solid material from surfaces, no volatile gases exploding out of "trapped pockets," then pushed away by radiation pressure, are necessary. A comet will produce a tail when electrical stress reaches a critical point and its plasma sheath starts to glow. Irrespective of its composition, a comet will obey the fundamental behavior of charged objects interacting with one another.

A comet's tail is created when its electric charge is struck by solar discharge plasma, conventionally called the "solar wind." As a comet approaches the Sun, its nucleus moves through envelopes of increased charge density. Its surface charge and internal polarization, developed in deep space, respond to the Sun's charged environment, changing its electrical potential.

As it moves away from the Sun, a comet's electrical balance with respect to the outer solar system will be different than when it was on its inward trajectory. If it meets another electrified plasma field of some kind it could begin to discharge again. What more electrically dynamic region than the one that exists around the gas giant planets?

Recent revelations about comets are more easily understood within the electric comet theory than within theories that depend on gravity and sublimation. The black, burned nuclei; the craters and rocky landscapes instead of ice fields; the narrow, energetic jets; the ion tails pointing toward the Sun; the sulfur compounds that require high temperatures to form; and the abundance of ultra-fine dust all point to electricity as their common source. Most important of all, water vapor is more prevalent farther away from the nucleus than close in—surely the exact opposite of what should be found if water ice and frost are what drive cometary jets.

The faster a comet's electrical environment changes, the more likely that flaring and fragmentation will occur. It seems probable that Holmes 17P is traveling through conductive strands of plasma that are energizing it enough for its "shell" to enter a glow-mode discharge state. The filamentary steamers are significant evidence for that contention.

By Stephen Smith


Sorry for posting the lot, many people don't bother to read links I think.
www.thunderbolts.info...

"We discovered that a comet is not really a 'dirty snowball' since dirt is dominant, not ice. Instead of being spherical like a warm snowball, a comet nucleus is elongated. The physical structure of a comet's interior is defined by its dust content rather than its ice content."

Sorry there's no need to defend the dirty snowball theory, it's already dead.
It just hasn't made the text books yet or impacted any other aspects of cosmology. Similarly the discovery that space is not a complete vacuum but is full of charged particles, did nothing. The visible universe is virtually all plasma, yet when you imply the dynamics of plasma at work to the pseudo skeptics of the faith based cosmology, they scream and whine.


[edit on 29-5-2009 by squiz]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Take a look at this.

As Cassini swooped upward from a death-defying 52-kilometer (31-mile) plunge past Enceladus two weeks ago, it skirted the edge of Enceladus' south polar plume, scooping up particles and gases to sample their composition. To the evident surprise of the Cassini science team, the gases that were tasted by Cassini's Ion and Neutral Mass Spectrometer (INMS) bore a strong resemblance to the gases that issue from comets. Whether the particles in Enceladus' vents also "taste like comet" cannot be said, because an error in new software uploaded for the flyby prevented the Cosmic Dust Analyzer (CDA) from collecting data during the close approach.

www.planetary.org...

That right, because it's the same process that going on with comets, those are not geysers, geysers that wander mind you.

And check this out.
Electrically Charged Particles Found In Enceladus Plumes


The spectrometer on Cassini, the Cassini Plasma Spectrometer (CAPS) discovered a surprise: the ice particles are electrically charged.


These guys are in a constant state of surprise it seems.



“What are particularly fascinating are the bursts of dust that CAPS detects when Cassini passes through the individual jets in the plume” says Jones. “Each jet is split according to charge though”, adds Arridge, “Negative grains are on one side, and positive ones on the other”.

Arridge said that perhaps, as these charged grains travel away from Enceladus, their paths are bent by electric and magnetic fields in Saturn’s giant magnetosphere.





[edit on 29-5-2009 by squiz]





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join